"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Hate the guy too, but activision is making mad bank through CoD and Skylander and shit. You can't say they don't know how to milk people for cash, because they clearly do.
So. Wrong. Right? I don't understand how this much wealth is still filtering its way up. There are certainly people more deserving of this money that could be re-distributed to the company. Unless Bobby Kotick does it all himself. How many people must they staff? Designers, programers, etc.
In all fairness, I don't know much about this guy's background. Going to his wikipedia page.
On April 28 2013 14:29 Juicyfruit wrote: Hate the guy too, but activision is making mad bank through CoD and Skylander and shit. You can't say they don't know how to milk people for cash, because they clearly do.
It's not the cash coming in that bothers me. It's that a good deal of that money is going to a sole individual rather than the rest of the company. Call me a socialist or a liberal, if you will...but goddamn.
He doesn't receive all that in cash its most shares since he bought a portion of Activision back then, still ridiculous. Everyone hates him but hes loaded what can you do capitalism at its best.
Well if the money is mainly stock worth I don't see why people are thinking he's gobbling up money from the other ranks (at least in terms of making games. Could probably distrubute that to lots of other employees though..).
On April 28 2013 14:32 Tatari wrote: Gamer logic: We hate Kotick? Better bend over and let him take our wallets and life savings to make him look good.
I don't get some people sometimes...
What are you implying? That we hate him but still buy his games? Well, that's the rub. I don't play CoD but I happen to think SC2 is a pretty fantastic product (campaign notwithstanding). For those people that do enjoy other activision games, I can't speak for them.
With that said, do the people buying these games actually support this guy? Does this guy really deserve (and I"m exaggerating) 50% of every game bought? Just because he owns the means of distribution and the company...ergh...I still don't know enough about him and his history with Activision.
The biggest thing I take objection to though is more of a fundamental belief that there are too few people in this world right now with too much of the resources. Sigh.
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?
Damn. And to think in comparison, the job of Prime Minister of Australia only gets 1/3 of a million per year. 64 mill is a lot of money for one year's work for one individual.
I hope the rest of the people in the company knows this and have also received appropriate raises.
On April 28 2013 14:35 DannyJ wrote: Well if the money is mainly stock worth I don't see why people are thinking he's gobbling up money from the other ranks.
It depends. For a company like Activision, stock is actually worth more a lot than cash, you don't get taxed as much when you convert it to cash and it doesn't depreciate like cash does.
Its actually not hard to sell company shares and get in cash, exactly what its worth in value. So really he did get 55 million dollars.
It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
but....but...but...then we can't get our pitchforks!
ITT: People who don't fully grasp economics and business
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
On April 28 2013 14:29 Juicyfruit wrote: Hate the guy too, but activision is making mad bank through CoD and Skylander and shit. You can't say they don't know how to milk people for cash, because they clearly do.
Hundreds of people were in involved in making CoD and Skylander a success.
It always bothers me when one guy is the primary beneficiary of so many people's hard work — and he's not even the one assuming any real risk.
Goodness I'm glad I stopped buying games from Activision. After the layoffs of High Moon Studios, I thought they couldn't stoop any lower but now they REALLY give scum a bad name. If people want to see justice, they ought to stop buying their polished turds but sadly there are idiots in the world of consumerism.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
God, well 10 million per year still makes me angry...lol
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.
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?
You basically get paid almost a minimum wage even though you are much more qualified and more deserving than the rest of the population.
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...
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?
You basically get paid almost a minimum wage even though you are much more qualified and more deserving than the rest of the population.
Source?
Why do people hate this guy?
I think his source is that he was actually a game developer.
On April 28 2013 14:29 Juicyfruit wrote: Hate the guy too, but activision is making mad bank through CoD and Skylander and shit. You can't say they don't know how to milk people for cash, because they clearly do.
Hundreds of people were in involved in making CoD and Skylander a success.
It always bothers me when one guy is the primary beneficiary of so many people's hard work — and he's not even the one assuming any real risk.
Really? He's taking no risk. I wonder how much his raise would have been if Activison was losing money instead of virtually printing it
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
God, well 10 million per year still makes me angry...lol
Greed goes unpunished these days. I'm not totally against capitalism but the current system is flawed at the top of the piramyd. All these bankers who bankrupted so many families got away too.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote: Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
This is really ironic considering how hilariously inaccurate your view of teaching is.
Development, be it of games or regular software, can be very enjoyable or very tedious. It entirely depends on your environment and your management.
Kotick's approach has utterly destroyed the trust in many of Blizzard's consumers because of how he's forced tactics and features that disgust manage. However, Blizzard still had huge sales simply on the name of past franchises. The real question is that, going forward, will people still slam down money just because of the game's name now that they know Blizzard's reputation?
interesting. I would expect more debate on supporting this since this is a US users heavy site. A CEO is much less replaceable than let's say a programmer, it's not that surprising he is earning much more than the other crews.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
On April 28 2013 14:58 ETisME wrote: A CEO is much less replaceable than let's say a programmer, it's not that surprising he is earning much more than the other crews.
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote: Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
This is really ironic considering how hilariously inaccurate your view of teaching is.
Development, be it of games or regular software, can be very enjoyable or very tedious. It entirely depends on your environment and your management.
Not really. You need to look at some of the horror stories of games developers especially Activision. There is not a single teacher in the world that gets that kind of treatment.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
I always wondered how the higher management gets away with numbers like this. The developement of Diablo 2 cost about 6 Mio. You would be able to make 5 to 10 brilliant games with this money, but instead you give it to one guy for his "brilliant" decisionmaking. Dont get me wrong, I like the idea that good work makes good money. But in cases like this the diffrence to what a normal game designer gets is just rediculous.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
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
I think he's saying they are much more deserving than the rest of the gaming industry workers not the rest of the population in general. I disagree though. To me, that's like saying the guy at BK that makes the cheeseburgers is more deserving of the big money than the CEO because he works harder. People seem to have this idea that CEOs sit around drinking scotch, wearing monocles, and smoking cigars while counting their money and greedily licking their lips for the next time they can screw over Mr. Working Man and take his paycheck so his kids can't have Christmas, all while laughing manically. Being a CEO requires a lot of work and normally years and years of hardwork and risks that could mean permanent financial ruin. It's not like a normal job where you do a poor job, get fired, and find another one for another company doing the same thing. As a CEO literally everything you do is for your business. Everything you do is in the spotlight and you risk millions or even billions of dollars (your own as well as others) and are responsible for other peoples jobs. Joe programmer doesn't get shit from 10,000 employees if he does a shitty job and blamed for the ruin of countless lives. Their only responsibility is programming. A CEO does a shitty job and he goes to prison, has his family reputation screwed for basically forever, gets paraded on tv or news outlets as a major failure, and has thousands basically blaming them for every problem in the world up to and including world hunger.
When was the last time you saw a programmer do a shitty job, get fired for it, and brought on TV to point out how awful they were at their job? Normally, when you get fired, you get fired. That's it. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Nobody remembers in 15 minutes even what happened to Jimmy from the corner office after he is replaces by James. Their is no legacy of failure. You are not responsible for anything other than one tiny bit of the company. If the company itself fails and you aren't at fault, you can get a new job. As the CEO, if company fails and it isn't your fault, you still have people looking to you and at you for you to solve the problem.
Edit: The CEO is also responsible if you the programmer do a shitty job while you the programmer are not responsible for the opposite.
On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote: $64.9 million
This is actually not that much money compared to Activision's revenue, and it looks like his salary barely jumped at all; he just was awarded a larger share of ownership.
On April 28 2013 14:29 Juicyfruit wrote: Hate the guy too, but activision is making mad bank through CoD and Skylander and shit. You can't say they don't know how to milk people for cash, because they clearly do.
Hundreds of people were in involved in making CoD and Skylander a success.
It always bothers me when one guy is the primary beneficiary of so many people's hard work — and he's not even the one assuming any real risk.
Really? He's taking no risk. I wonder how much his raise would have been if Activison was losing money instead of virtually printing it
Um, dude learn to read. You're disagreeing with something I didn't even write. Sheesh.
On April 28 2013 14:48 nicknack wrote: Why do people hate this guy?
"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." -Kotick
On April 28 2013 14:55 Zandar wrote: Greed goes unpunished these days. I'm not totally against capitalism but the current system is flawed at the top of the piramyd. All these bankers who bankrupted so many families got away too.
Bobby Kotick's "greed" has made Activision a lot of money.
It's a short-term strategy that will eventually suck the life out of the franchises he's milking into the ground, but you can't deny that it works.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
I'm going to jump in here due to the gross inaccuracies and exaggerations you've put out. First off, Blizzard Activision has done extremely well during its last quarter, generating about $1.8 billion with a profit of about $350 million. Overall in 2012, the company generated about $5 billion (memory is fuzzy) with over $1 billion in profits for the year. Compare this with other publishers like EA and the video game industry overall, the publisher has been ahead of the curve in the industry. To shareholders point of view, this man absolutely deserves a raise, but it wasn't in form of cold hard cash, it was in the form of additional stocks, not directly from profits. This is absolutely not a 800% raise, nor is it a raise at all. Instead, he simply has more stake/ownership into the company now.
In most cases, one would want to hold onto stocks for few years than to sell them in order to raise cash for reinvestment/capital. It's better to simply use the profits they have or take out a loan from a bank which the company has been doing.
Now, you ask "how about reinvesting some of that money back into the company", and the company has indeed been doing that last year. Of the $1 billion profits from 2012, about $500 million went to shareholders, and most or rest of the $500 million went back into the company; Kotick's additional shares are not part of this.
IMO, Kotick has made the company a money making machine, and from that viewpoint, deserves the compensation.
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
I think he's saying they are much more deserving than the rest of the gaming industry workers not the rest of the population in general. I disagree though. To me, that's like saying the guy at BK that makes the cheeseburgers is more deserving of the big money than the CEO because he works harder. People seem to have this idea that CEOs sit around drinking scotch, wearing monocles, and smoking cigars while counting their money and greedily licking their lips for the next time they can screw over Mr. Working Man and take his paycheck so his kids can't have Christmas, all while laughing manically. Being a CEO requires a lot of work and normally years and years of hardwork and risks that could mean permanent financial ruin. It's not like a normal job where you do a poor job, get fired, and find another one for another company doing the same thing. As a CEO literally everything you do is for your business. Everything you do is in the spotlight and you risk millions or even billions of dollars (your own as well as others) and are responsible for other peoples jobs. Joe programmer doesn't get shit from 10,000 employees if he does a shitty job and blamed for the ruin of countless lives. Their only responsibility is programming. A CEO does a shitty job and he goes to prison, has his family reputation screwed for basically forever, gets paraded on tv or news outlets as a major failure, and has thousands basically blaming them for every problem in the world up to and including world hunger.
When was the last time you saw a programmer do a shitty job, get fired for it, and brought on TV to point out how awful they were at their job? Normally, when you get fired, you get fired. That's it. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Nobody remembers in 15 minutes even what happened to Jimmy from the corner office after he is replaces by James. Their is no legacy of failure. You are not responsible for anything other than one tiny bit of the company. If the company itself fails and you aren't at fault, you can get a new job. As the CEO, if company fails and it isn't your fault, you still have people looking to you and at you for you to solve the problem.
Edit: The CEO is also responsible if you the programmer do a shitty job while you the programmer are not responsible for the opposite.
I agree with you. I'm more emphasising the balance. You are completely correct in that its the responsibility and personal risk rather than the work load which is partly why CEOs get paid so much.
However I want to mention that this is far from the reality, what usually happens when a CEO does a bad job in a large company, is that he ends up shifting to another company/sector and getting paid the same or even more. Just look at Jay Wilson. A good track record has a large impact on a CEO's wage, however a bad one rarely diminishes it.
Sol Trujillo is a great example, where he became CEO of Graviton, which ended up having to close down, and then ended up being appointed for Telstra and making it lose 25 billion dollars and stepping down on his own rather than getting fired. Given his track record he should never have been appointed but it didn't seem to matter, he ended up getting more money anyway.
I also want to counter the point about job security though, job security for games developers is pretty atrocious.
I'm not saying CEO's should not get paid more than developers, I'm just saying that its silly that Kotick gets a huge raise while developers have to live such poor lifestyles.
Per hour developers don't earn a whole lot, the reason they earn a bit more than the average joe has more to do with the fact that they spend twice as long in the office.
On April 28 2013 15:17 xM(Z wrote: so where is the intellectual property of the developers? because it looks to be pirated by CEOs.
They sold it for money :p
or, why wouldn't the same logic apply to media artists. after they get hired by a records/movie company, fuck them. 9 to 5 work hours and minimum wage. :p
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
On April 28 2013 15:29 sluggaslamoo wrote:For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Yes, that's because game dev is the bottom of the software development world in terms of pay, hours, lifestyle, and general stress on the job. Not at every studio, but that's par for the course. The rest of the software development world is not like this.
(Talking about AAA studios here, where Valve is a shining exception, those guys are amazing. Smaller places aren't like this either, and I kinda hope the industry moves to less of a sweatshop type ordeal)
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
I'm going to jump in here due to the gross inaccuracies and exaggerations you've put out. First off, Blizzard Activision has done extremely well during its last quarter, generating about $1.8 billion with a profit of about $350 million. Overall in 2012, the company generated about $5 billion (memory is fuzzy) with over $1 billion in profits for the year. Compare this with other publishers like EA and the video game industry overall, the publisher has been ahead of the curve in the industry. To shareholders point of view, this man absolutely deserves a raise, but it wasn't in form of cold hard cash, it was in the form of additional stocks, not directly from profits. This is absolutely not a 800% raise, nor is it a raise at all. Instead, he simply has more stake/ownership into the company now.
In most cases, one would want to hold onto stocks for few years than to sell them in order to raise cash for reinvestment/capital. It's better to simply use the profits they have or take out a loan from a bank which the company has been doing.
Now, you ask "how about reinvesting some of that money back into the company", and the company has indeed been doing that last year. Of the $1 billion profits from 2012, about $500 million went to shareholders, and most or rest of the $500 million went back into the company; Kotick's additional shares are not part of this.
IMO, Kotick has made the company a money making machine, and from that viewpoint, deserves the compensation.
I agree that the 800% raise title is quite sensationalist and not actually true.
I think you are missing the point though. A games developer should not be solely looking at the bottom line, if it was all about the money, why is Blizzard even in the gaming industry at all?
Second of all. Either the shares are invested back in the company, in which case, the company still loses the 55 million while Kotick earns 55 million. Or the shares are sold to the public, in which case, more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm, and Kotick still earns a substantial amount of money which he doesn't even need.
Either way its 55 million the company could have used to invest back into the company. There is no such thing as free money.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 15:08 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 15:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:59 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
I guess the quality of life in your area may not be as good as mine, I mean it did seem really tough from what I saw (just not as much as employees for AAA title companies) so I thought I had the gist of it. It seems strange that slave wages are being paid out to any employee in your firms especially in the big four but I will concede my point as I have no proof to say its not. It was certainly far from the case from my experience.
However even though you think it might be bad, its still a mere shadow compared to working on an AAA title for some companies. I guess its really hard for people to gauge the difference until I give you an example.
How about being put into an interrogation room and being brought to tears, while being told you will never be paid until the game is finished, or getting fired after your work so they don't have to pay you.
Well Activision did just that on Modern Warfare 2.
Activision's investigation allegedly included a six-hour interrogation of West and Zampella in a windowless conference room. The plaintiffs state numerous Infinity Ward employees were also questioned and some even brought to tears during the interrogation. When West and Zampella refused to turn over their personal computers and cell phones, Activision's attorneys allegedly stated the pair was being insubordinate.
Just weeks before Messrs. West and Zampella were to receive the royalties for their hard work on Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired them in the hope that by doing so, it could avoid paying them what they had rightfully earned, and to seize control of the Infinity Ward Studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare branded games and had, apparently, decided it no longer wanted to live with.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
You also have to consider that we are in the wake of the GFC, so lay offs aren't that uncommon in any industry. Even in a booming industry, Kotick is absorbing then firing entire companies in the most dehumanising way possible. He hardly deserves this raise when a gaming industry should not be all about the money.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 15:08 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 15:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:59 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
I guess the quality of life in your area may not be as good as mine, I mean it did seem really tough from what I saw (just not as much as employees for AAA title companies) so I thought I had the gist of it. It seems strange that slave wages are being paid out to any employee in your firms especially in the big four but I will concede my point as I have no proof to say its not. It was certainly far from the case from my experience.
However even though you think it might be bad, its still a mere shadow compared to working on an AAA title for some companies. I guess its really hard for people to gauge the difference until I give you an example.
How about being put into an interrogation room and being brought to tears, while being told you will never be paid until the game is finished, or getting fired after your work so they don't have to pay you.
Well Activision did just that on Modern Warfare 3.
Activision's investigation allegedly included a six-hour interrogation of West and Zampella in a windowless conference room. The plaintiffs state numerous Infinity Ward employees were also questioned and some even brought to tears during the interrogation. When West and Zampella refused to turn over their personal computers and cell phones, Activision's attorneys allegedly stated the pair was being insubordinate.
Just weeks before Messrs. West and Zampella were to receive the royalties for their hard work on Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired them in the hope that by doing so, it could avoid paying them what they had rightfully earned, and to seize control of the Infinity Ward Studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare branded games and had, apparently, decided it no longer wanted to live with.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
You also have to consider that we are in the wake of the GFC, so lay offs aren't that uncommon in any industry. Even in a booming industry, Kotick is absorbing then firing entire companies in the most dehumanising way possible. He hardly deserves this raise when a gaming industry should not be all about the money.
Unfortunately, the shareholders might not be gamers, and their goal is in conflict with ours, as well as the developers.
People keep saying that gaming business shouldn't be about the money. I thought that was the whole point of any business. Sure it's all well and good for companies to have "mission statements," about improving the world and whatnot but I'm pretty sure that any business or any job for that matter is for the money. The vast majority of people work jobs they fucking hate for money and even if they "love" their job, they wouldn't do it for free. Why does everyone expect major companies to have some higher purpose when it comes to their business than they themselves do?
On April 28 2013 14:52 screamingpalm wrote: So Kickstarters FTW then?
Well Kickstarter is cool but it cannot replace the whole industry.
Basicly a kickstarter project is financed by its own customer, making everyone happy: -Developers should satisfy their customer first because they no longer have to listen to shareholders. -If the game disapoints, it won't raise another kickstarter. So they'll give their best. -Since its usually small studios, the profit generally goes in majority back to the studio instead to a complete corporation.
However, there is huge drawbacks. You have no guarantee that the project will be even founded. Right now the only big projects are follow-ups of decade old game. There is no way a new unknown studio for a new IP would raise more than 500K... which is very little if you want high quality. Pledging requires faith. You pay years in advance for something that may not even be good. There is no way to raise enough money to cover the costs of big AAA titles.
Where Kickstarter shines is in projects that are already wanted by the public but dismissed by investors. For everything else it just wouldn't work.
On April 28 2013 16:16 Magic_Mike wrote: People keep saying that gaming business shouldn't be about the money. I thought that was the whole point of any business. Sure it's all well and good for companies to have "mission statements," about improving the world and whatnot but I'm pretty sure that any business or any job for that matter is for the money. The vast majority of people work jobs they fucking hate for money and even if they "love" their job, they wouldn't do it for free. Why does everyone expect major companies to have some higher purpose when it comes to their business than they themselves do?
This is very simplistic thinking. Many companies have developed a triple bottom line over a single bottom line. Its ironic that the big games companies are going to be some of the last to make the transition.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 15:08 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 15:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:59 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
I guess the quality of life in your area may not be as good as mine, I mean it did seem really tough from what I saw (just not as much as employees for AAA title companies) so I thought I had the gist of it. It seems strange that slave wages are being paid out to any employee in your firms especially in the big four but I will concede my point as I have no proof to say its not. It was certainly far from the case from my experience.
However even though you think it might be bad, its still a mere shadow compared to working on an AAA title for some companies. I guess its really hard for people to gauge the difference until I give you an example.
How about being put into an interrogation room and being brought to tears, while being told you will never be paid until the game is finished, or getting fired after your work so they don't have to pay you.
Well Activision did just that on Modern Warfare 3.
Activision's investigation allegedly included a six-hour interrogation of West and Zampella in a windowless conference room. The plaintiffs state numerous Infinity Ward employees were also questioned and some even brought to tears during the interrogation. When West and Zampella refused to turn over their personal computers and cell phones, Activision's attorneys allegedly stated the pair was being insubordinate.
Just weeks before Messrs. West and Zampella were to receive the royalties for their hard work on Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired them in the hope that by doing so, it could avoid paying them what they had rightfully earned, and to seize control of the Infinity Ward Studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare branded games and had, apparently, decided it no longer wanted to live with.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
You also have to consider that we are in the wake of the GFC, so lay offs aren't that uncommon in any industry. Even in a booming industry, Kotick is absorbing then firing entire companies in the most dehumanising way possible. He hardly deserves this raise when a gaming industry should not be all about the money.
Unfortunately, the shareholders might not be gamers, and their goal is in conflict with ours, as well as the developers.
Valve is certainly not doing this but I guess they are the exception.
The issue is whether it is moral for companies to attract shareholders that are only about the money. Even as a gamer, I would not be investing in shares in a games industry. I know you don't have a lot of control over it, but companies like Blizzard are less likely to attract those shareholders than companies like Activision due to their philosophy for instance.
This man got rich at Activision by essentially coming in and saying "keep making those games that make you tons of money and take no risks, now pay me."
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
I'm going to jump in here due to the gross inaccuracies and exaggerations you've put out. First off, Blizzard Activision has done extremely well during its last quarter, generating about $1.8 billion with a profit of about $350 million. Overall in 2012, the company generated about $5 billion (memory is fuzzy) with over $1 billion in profits for the year. Compare this with other publishers like EA and the video game industry overall, the publisher has been ahead of the curve in the industry. To shareholders point of view, this man absolutely deserves a raise, but it wasn't in form of cold hard cash, it was in the form of additional stocks, not directly from profits. This is absolutely not a 800% raise, nor is it a raise at all. Instead, he simply has more stake/ownership into the company now.
In most cases, one would want to hold onto stocks for few years than to sell them in order to raise cash for reinvestment/capital. It's better to simply use the profits they have or take out a loan from a bank which the company has been doing.
Now, you ask "how about reinvesting some of that money back into the company", and the company has indeed been doing that last year. Of the $1 billion profits from 2012, about $500 million went to shareholders, and most or rest of the $500 million went back into the company; Kotick's additional shares are not part of this.
IMO, Kotick has made the company a money making machine, and from that viewpoint, deserves the compensation.
I agree that the 800% raise title is quite sensationalist and not actually true.
I think you are missing the point though. A games developer should not be solely looking at the bottom line, if it was all about the money, why is Blizzard even in the gaming industry at all?
Second of all. Either the shares are invested back in the company, in which case, the company still loses the 55 million while Kotick earns 55 million. Or the shares are sold to the public, in which case, more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm, and Kotick still earns a substantial amount of money which he doesn't even need.
Either way its 55 million the company could have used to invest back into the company. There is no such thing as free money.
Even though a game company should focus on making games, the company is owned by thousands of people, groups, and institutions of diverse profile with a common goal: increase the value of the company. They effectively own the company, and therefore, the company's ultimate goal is to increase the value of the company. Creating video games is a means to this as it should.
I'm not understanding the logic of:
"shares being invested back into company" = "company still loses $55 million" + "Kotick earns $55 million"
In form of share buybacks, the shares are erased, reducing the number of stocks while maintaining the value of the company, and therefore increasing the value of the remaining stocks. The increase in value of stocks doesn't all go to Kotick, it gets distributed evenly among all the shareholders. Based on the current stats of Activision stocks, Kotick would only earn at most $510,000 more if Activision buybacks $55 million worth of shares.
"shares being sold to the public in which case more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm"
In form of Activision owning at least $55 million worth of shares and selling them to the market in order to raise capital. That is financially a stupid decision that can only be seen as an act of desperation. There are far better ways to raise cash for capital, primarily through bonds and loans. Not only that, but it also reduces the value of the shares which goes against shareholder's interests. Furthermore, Activision won't being paying substantially more to shareholders, only about $684,000 more per year in form of dividends, that's not bad from cashing in $55 million, although it's still a retarded move.
There is no such thing as free money that's true. However, this $55 million came from something the company shouldn't or can't use to reinvest along with money from interested buyers, not from the company's cash or profits.
Well if he increases company profit by over 64 million more than a replacement CEO, then if I were vested in the company I would understand compensating him that much?
You cant blame a guy for earning millions of money He is doing everything right. I hate the CoD products myself and its a money machine, but its us the consumers who are at a blame. If the Call of Duty series would sell poorly they would try another direction with the games.
But the problem is that they have no other competition, so games like Call of Duty and Battlefield stand completely own in theyre genre. So we just buy them cause there are no other games to play like that. The ArmA series are the only ones who can compete with Battlefield and 100% destroy it, but its PC only.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I worked 14+ hour days this whole week to make a milestone. Fuck you.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
It doesn't matter if you work hard or not. It's all about supply and demand. If there's a big supply of game developers, it's natural that their salary will go down. Joe the Game Programmer can be replaced easily by Dan the Game Programmer in just couple day. On the other hand, experienced CEO are not that many, it's very hard to find another one, especially in the same field business, to replace him. Moreover, for example, if you, a random Joe, have 2 offers to be hired as a programmer and as a CEO, what would you choose? We can joke around and stuff, but in the end of the day, random dude like us will just choose to be programmer and not CEO, because we all know that CEO is a much tougher job and lots of responsibility.
And I can tell you that not all game developers are that good, or their jobs are that hard. In one company, only top tip developers are important, the rest are disposable and most of the time they only do what we call monkey jobs. You work long hour and code and stuff, but most of the time you just repeat what you already do thousands of time, aka flipping burger.
Another point is you can't just not reward your CEO. If you have good years and make profit, you have the responsibility to reward your CEO. It's not only an incentive for CEO to stick around, but also to please your shareholders and stock. Imagine if your company is making money, but CEO doesn't get rewarded and end up joining competitive company. Not only your company's stock will drop dramatically, but your shareholders will begin to worry about the future of the company.
On April 28 2013 17:03 grtgrt1 wrote: Everyone's dissing while in fact, if he wasn't on the helm, the company might be totally screwed now, like some other from the industry.
He hasn't done anything new in years. No new IP, no new features, no new services. Their success is coming from purchases they've made in the past 5 years and putting them on a yearly release schedule.
On April 28 2013 17:03 grtgrt1 wrote: Everyone's dissing while in fact, if he wasn't on the helm, the company might be totally screwed now, like some other from the industry.
He hasn't done anything new in years. No new IP, no new features, no new services. Their success is coming from purchases they've made in the past 5 years and putting them on a yearly release schedule.
And yet making purchases of ip/companies is exactly what his job is to do. His job as ceo isn't to come up with new ideas for video games.
On April 28 2013 15:06 esperanto wrote: I always wondered how the higher management gets away with numbers like this. The developement of Diablo 2 cost about 6 Mio. You would be able to make 5 to 10 brilliant games with this money, but instead you give it to one guy for his "brilliant" decisionmaking. Dont get me wrong, I like the idea that good work makes good money. But in cases like this the diffrence to what a normal game designer gets is just rediculous.
Yes, this is what I'm saying. The guy might be a brilliant speculator and mover of products. People have brought up the fact that it's all just stock options, and I don't know much about money (read: I'm broke). Still, where is this money coming from? And if there is money being generated through stocks, where is that money coming from and where is it going? It's not (totally) about Kotick being undeserving, but all of that money going into his pockets is money that could be used for other things, no?
The whole separation between the good and the stock and the commercial aspect is baffling to me. They call him the Chief Executive Operator, but what does he operate really? Anyways, creatives over corporations any day. (That's my bias)
On April 28 2013 17:03 grtgrt1 wrote: Everyone's dissing while in fact, if he wasn't on the helm, the company might be totally screwed now, like some other from the industry.
Might win the fight. Might say goodnight.
The problem with contrafactual argumentation is its uncertainty. Now, you can claim that the company might go bankrupt, without him doing x and that is fair. But you cannot say anything in general about him as a CEO without having extensive knowledge about his choices. A more than 100 % increase in wage is pretty massssive. With a crisis and all, it is the wrong timing to get those extra money anyway.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I worked 14+ hour days this whole week to make a milestone. Fuck you.
I work from 8 - 8 on normal weeks and I am only a consultant (not big4). When things go crunch time and travelling is involved weekends are off the table and things go furry. I wouldn't even compare my working hours with IBers.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
That is the logical approach in a capitalist society, which is fine but definitely not the only approach or even the "correct approach" for many I guess.
I am not fully sold on that, there is a valid discussion to be had about how much is too much considering his position and the actual "output he as a person has" without drifting into some sort of class warfare.
He should be paid a shitton of money as CEO whose company does really really well - more than he could spend without having absurd spending habits, but a 800% raise is just absurd in times of crisis.
Even this GMI ratings lady said that this sort of compensation is rather unprecedented in the video gaming industry.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
That is the logical approach in a capitalist society, which is fine but definitely not the only approach or even the "correct approach" for many I guess.
I am not fully sold on that, there is a valid discussion to be had about how much is too much considering his position and the actual "output he as a person has" without drifting into some sort of class warfare.
He should be paid a shitton of money as CEO whose company does really really well - more than he could spend without having absurd spending habits, but a 800% raise is just absurd in times of crisis.
Even this GMI ratings lady said that this sort of compensation is rather unprecedented in the video gaming industry.
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 of that compensation? Shouldn't it go to the people actually doing the work?
Because then you would be called a utopian anti-american socialist.
On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote: Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
What is he doing wrong? All you are arguing is that he makes too much by your standards and should spread his earnings. Since when is altruism in a CEO's job description? Most employees don't give a shit about the company they're working for and only care about getting compensated for the work they did. Well this is the CEO's compensation and whether he gives a damn about the distribution of all the earnings is irrelevant.
And by "these guys" do you mean most of the major US companies? Because this issue has been prevalent for a while. That's just one of the depressing realities of unregulated capitalism. Point fingers at "the system" all you want. It's never going to change.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
That is the logical approach in a capitalist society, which is fine but definitely not the only approach or even the "correct approach" for many I guess.
I am not fully sold on that, there is a valid discussion to be had about how much is too much considering his position and the actual "output he as a person has" without drifting into some sort of class warfare.
He should be paid a shitton of money as CEO whose company does really really well - more than he could spend without having absurd spending habits, but a 800% raise is just absurd in times of crisis.
Even this GMI ratings lady said that this sort of compensation is rather unprecedented in the video gaming industry.
It wasn't a 800% increase. Not even close.
The Kotaku article is lying then? If so please elaborate.
//edit: ah k so you are getting at the fact that it's mainly in stock awards.
Still, I don't see how that should not be able to still spark a discussion.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
To be polite, your...philosophy...isn't shared by most of the people on the planet. There's plenty of people who would turn down larger sums of money for more services rendered.
On April 28 2013 17:40 EpiK wrote: What is he doing wrong? All you are arguing is that he makes too much by your standards and should spread his earnings. Since when is altruism in a CEO's job description? Most employees don't give a shit about the company they're working for and only care about getting compensated for the work they did. Well this is the CEO's compensation and whether he gives a damn about the distribution of all the earnings is irrelevant.
And by "these guys" do you mean most of the major US companies? Because this issue has been prevalent for a while. That's just one of the depressing realities of unregulated capitalism. Point fingers at "the system" all you want. It's never going to change.
There are exactly zero people here who are suggesting that what is earning is illegal. He is perfectly in his right to take his raise.
On the other hand, one's rights and legal obligations are not necessarily aligned with what is moral. For example, it would be perfectly within my rights to take my money, convert it into North Korean won, and burn it in front of starving children. Most people would still consider it to be a douche move, though.
Of course, what is "moral" is its own can of worms...
1st Im happy for anyone in gaming industry making big money, well im happy for anyone who is happy : ) 2nd this make me jelly that he makes this much and I make only 2,5euro per hour for selling his games in the shop
On April 28 2013 14:42 Mothra wrote: What does he even do? Like if his job were to suddenly not exist, does the end product not get made and sold?
He takes things that are already making money, pressures them to make more money, and he gets a cut. Management in a nutshell. As Gabe Newell put it, management is not the ultimate career goal, nor should the compensation reflect that. It's just another subset of the corporation. But since they're the "deciders," they get to decide for themselves how much they're worth. And surprise, surprise, they're worth several orders of magnitude more than everybody else.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
That is the logical approach in a capitalist society, which is fine but definitely not the only approach or even the "correct approach" for many I guess.
I am not fully sold on that, there is a valid discussion to be had about how much is too much considering his position and the actual "output he as a person has" without drifting into some sort of class warfare.
He should be paid a shitton of money as CEO whose company does really really well - more than he could spend without having absurd spending habits, but a 800% raise is just absurd in times of crisis.
Even this GMI ratings lady said that this sort of compensation is rather unprecedented in the video gaming industry.
It wasn't a 800% increase. Not even close.
The Kotaku article is lying then? If so please elaborate.
//edit: ah k so you are getting at the fact that it's mainly in stock awards.
Still, I don't see how that should not be able to still spark a discussion.
Whilst being a stock award does give it an amount of volatility to it what I meant was that it was vested over 5 years. So basically he is getting a fifth of it (or depending on how they want to tranche it) as income every year. What Kotaku is doing is taking his 5 year income as a sum and dividing it by his current annual salary. If his annual salary got a 800% increase that would be insane and the shareholders would go apeshit.
Generally big companies have a performance test every year for each tranche which might lapse if the company does shit (for LTI plans only). Wonder if he can perform satisfactorily for 5 years.
On April 28 2013 14:32 Tatari wrote: Gamer logic: We hate Kotick? Better bend over and let him take our wallets and life savings to make him look good.
Friggin ridiculous....There is no justification for this kind of salary, and this custom of overpaying CEOs, I have never understood. As the rest of the world is going through austerity measures, strikes, cutbacks etc. these guys seem to make even more each year. The shops retailing the games, the middlemen etc. deserve more of the cake instead of this overpriced derphead IMO.
On April 28 2013 14:42 Mothra wrote: What does he even do? Like if his job were to suddenly not exist, does the end product not get made and sold?
He takes things that are already making money, pressures them to make more money, and he gets a cut. Management in a nutshell. As Gabe Newell put it, management is not the ultimate career goal, nor should the compensation reflect that. It's just another subset of the corporation. But since they're the "deciders," they get to decide for themselves how much they're worth. And surprise, surprise, they're worth several orders of magnitude more than everybody else.
The CEO doesn't decide his own salary at least not in Europe.
I don't like this. If I spend money on Blizzard games I want it to be used for compensating the developers or for reinvestment into WCS and such. Not to give Bobby Kotick (who does not care about games) a raise. Isn't average worker pay to CEO pay for big companies like 1:500 these days?
On April 28 2013 18:10 dartoo wrote: Well big ceo's make money......why are people so mad about this, I dont understand.
A lot of people buy CoD etc etc, they have fun with the games, bobby makes money.
Because of who it is. Bobby Kotick is the biggest asshole to ever plague the gaming industry. He epitomizes everything that is bad about free market capitalism, an opportunistic little toad without even a hint of passion or even interest in gaming.
Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime.
This self righteous indignation is disgusting. The fact that people actually believe this kind of thing is mind boggling. People deserve to make as much money as somebody else is willing to pay them. Period. I'd wager there isn't a nerd on the internet who would decline Kotick's paycheck for services rendered.
That is the logical approach in a capitalist society, which is fine but definitely not the only approach or even the "correct approach" for many I guess.
I am not fully sold on that, there is a valid discussion to be had about how much is too much considering his position and the actual "output he as a person has" without drifting into some sort of class warfare.
He should be paid a shitton of money as CEO whose company does really really well - more than he could spend without having absurd spending habits, but a 800% raise is just absurd in times of crisis.
Even this GMI ratings lady said that this sort of compensation is rather unprecedented in the video gaming industry.
It wasn't a 800% increase. Not even close.
The Kotaku article is lying then? If so please elaborate.
//edit: ah k so you are getting at the fact that it's mainly in stock awards.
Still, I don't see how that should not be able to still spark a discussion.
Whilst being a stock award does give it an amount of volatility to it what I meant was that it was vested over 5 years. So basically he is getting a fifth of it (or depending on how they want to tranche it) as income every year. Basically what Kotaku is doing is taking his 5 year income as a sum and dividing it by his current annual salary. If his annual salary got a 800% increase that would be insane and the shareholders would go apeshit.
Generally big companies have a performance test every year for each tranche which might lapse if the company does shit (for LTI plans only). Wonder if he can perform satisfactorily for 5 years.
Yeah saw that as well after reading it for the second time. Still I am with this GMI Lady in that his performance/compensation ratio is rather off the charts and intransparent - apart from the fact that the company as a whole having a blast - while him being in charge that is. In addition it sets (another?) bad precedent of fat cats doing well while ordinary folks are hurting.
Having his stock award doing well mainly depends on whether they will continue their CoD release spree every year and Blizzard going successfully Titan instead of WoW.
I think chances are high he will be a happy Bobby.
If I understood that correctly, he got $8m as a Salary and the rest was because he bought Stock in Activision? Activision Blizzard made $4.856bn in revenues in 2012 - which makes his salary 0.2% of that revenue. That is still a lot, but nowhere near a significant amount of Activions revenues.
The fact that his Stocks are worth a lot more because Activion is worth a lot more shouldn't raise concern.
His job is Management, so he should be paid according to monetary performance goals, not video game quality - and Activision is performing very well.
On April 28 2013 14:42 Mothra wrote: What does he even do? Like if his job were to suddenly not exist, does the end product not get made and sold?
He takes things that are already making money, pressures them to make more money, and he gets a cut. Management in a nutshell. As Gabe Newell put it, management is not the ultimate career goal, nor should the compensation reflect that. It's just another subset of the corporation. But since they're the "deciders," they get to decide for themselves how much they're worth. And surprise, surprise, they're worth several orders of magnitude more than everybody else.
The CEO doesn't decide his own salary at least not in Europe.
IIRC CEO salary in America is 100's of times higher than in Europe.
If the company gives out new shares the value doesn't come from sales or savings, it comes from other shareholders. This deal would practically be each shareholder agreeing to give 0,06% of their share to Kotick every year for 5 years.
On April 28 2013 18:25 Teddyman wrote: If the company gives out new shares the value doesn't come from sales or savings, it comes from other shareholders. This deal would practically be each shareholder agreeing to give 0,06% of their share to Kotick every year for 5 years.
There is no person in the world that would give up their shares to some CEO. Most likely he is getting shares that were owned by activision.
On April 28 2013 18:25 Teddyman wrote: If the company gives out new shares the value doesn't come from sales or savings, it comes from other shareholders. This deal would practically be each shareholder agreeing to give 0,06% of their share to Kotick every year for 5 years.
There is no person in the world that would give up their shares to some CEO. Most likely he is getting shares that were owned by activision.
Nobody is giving their shares, the company would give him new shares. All other shares would lose 0,3% of their value over 5 years from dilution.
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.
On April 28 2013 15:17 xM(Z wrote: so where is the intellectual property of the developers? because it looks to be pirated by CEOs.
They sold it for money :p
or, why wouldn't the same logic apply to media artists. after they get hired by a records/movie company, fuck them. 9 to 5 work hours and minimum wage. :p
If they choose to do that sure, but artists that have any marketable talent they will get what they are worth due to the revenue and profit they can bring in.
If you work for others you lose the right to IP. Think you can do it alone? Great do so.
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
Based on the complexity of their job ( and the limited amount of individuals who could do such a job), yes they are more deserving than most people you mentioned.. especially big brothers/sisters and single moms. Speaking of which, why did you bother mentioning those? Wow..
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 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 19:31 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Lol. Give me that money and I will take the job, then let someone else do the job for me and pay them since I would be rich as hell.
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:
It's just the value of the stock options he got which he has to spread out over five years. Stop being so stupid, people. His cash salary is exactly the same!
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.
On April 28 2013 21:21 evilcommiedictator wrote: Luckily all the artists and devs get a raise as well too, right? Right? Oh I see, America, wd
There's plenty of things to bitch at America for, their healthcare, their attempts to police the world, and so on, but this is just silly.
Last time I checked, Australia wasn't a socialist utopia, and CEOs still get handsomely rewarded there, while the grunts doing the work get as little as possible. This is a global trend, not one limited to America.
America is the trendsetter though, some annoyance is definitely warranted.
That this happens in a gaming company, where lots of people from this forum actually do know, and not speculate about, which people are responsible for the end product (developers, designers and artists) makes it all the more aggravating.
Yeah the guy is getting paid in stock options meaning he has a vested interest in the company doing well (smart payment plan) but he is essentially exploiting the overabundance of people wanting in the gaming industry (keeps wages low, profits high) to do this. All one needs to be is an asshole, not a genious.
And to the capitalism, fuck yeah people, would you honestly rather reward a suit for successfully paying low wages with an enormous salary or pay him a big salary (say... 1mil? that's still 20 times the salary of the average developer) for doing his job and pay the people responsible for your product a very modest extra sum? The shareholders see the same number in the end in both situations so they could probably care less, the office would be full of smiling faces in the morning and the CEO still gets to lord it over everyone, financially and otherwise.
You want the best you gotta pay, end of. He must be worth it, companies this size aren't in the habit of throwing money away. There are probably only a handful of people on the planet could do his job.
Further goes to prove my point that the CoD games are just a money pit where little effort is put into them for maximum financial gain. I still stand by saying MW2 was a better graphical game then Black 1/2 and MW3, it was also more fun (as was CoD4)
On April 28 2013 21:52 Detri wrote: You want the best you gotta pay, end of. He must be worth it, companies this size aren't in the habit of throwing money away. There are probably only a handful of people on the planet could do his job.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
,,The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
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...
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 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 23:39 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. -_-
On April 28 2013 14:52 screamingpalm wrote: So Kickstarters FTW then?
This without a doubt. It's the saving grace for keeping games from becoming nothing but pandering, shiny trinkets for toddlers. Blazzard, Actevussian, Ubehsaft, Bettasde I'm looking at you....
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
I'm going to jump in here due to the gross inaccuracies and exaggerations you've put out. First off, Blizzard Activision has done extremely well during its last quarter, generating about $1.8 billion with a profit of about $350 million. Overall in 2012, the company generated about $5 billion (memory is fuzzy) with over $1 billion in profits for the year. Compare this with other publishers like EA and the video game industry overall, the publisher has been ahead of the curve in the industry. To shareholders point of view, this man absolutely deserves a raise, but it wasn't in form of cold hard cash, it was in the form of additional stocks, not directly from profits. This is absolutely not a 800% raise, nor is it a raise at all. Instead, he simply has more stake/ownership into the company now.
In most cases, one would want to hold onto stocks for few years than to sell them in order to raise cash for reinvestment/capital. It's better to simply use the profits they have or take out a loan from a bank which the company has been doing.
Now, you ask "how about reinvesting some of that money back into the company", and the company has indeed been doing that last year. Of the $1 billion profits from 2012, about $500 million went to shareholders, and most or rest of the $500 million went back into the company; Kotick's additional shares are not part of this.
IMO, Kotick has made the company a money making machine, and from that viewpoint, deserves the compensation.
I agree that the 800% raise title is quite sensationalist and not actually true.
I think you are missing the point though. A games developer should not be solely looking at the bottom line, if it was all about the money, why is Blizzard even in the gaming industry at all?
Second of all. Either the shares are invested back in the company, in which case, the company still loses the 55 million while Kotick earns 55 million. Or the shares are sold to the public, in which case, more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm, and Kotick still earns a substantial amount of money which he doesn't even need.
Either way its 55 million the company could have used to invest back into the company. There is no such thing as free money.
Even though a game company should focus on making games, the company is owned by thousands of people, groups, and institutions of diverse profile with a common goal: increase the value of the company. They effectively own the company, and therefore, the company's ultimate goal is to increase the value of the company. Creating video games is a means to this as it should.
I'm not understanding the logic of:
"shares being invested back into company" = "company still loses $55 million" + "Kotick earns $55 million"
In form of share buybacks, the shares are erased, reducing the number of stocks while maintaining the value of the company, and therefore increasing the value of the remaining stocks. The increase in value of stocks doesn't all go to Kotick, it gets distributed evenly among all the shareholders. Based on the current stats of Activision stocks, Kotick would only earn at most $510,000 more if Activision buybacks $55 million worth of shares.
"shares being sold to the public in which case more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm"
In form of Activision owning at least $55 million worth of shares and selling them to the market in order to raise capital. That is financially a stupid decision that can only be seen as an act of desperation. There are far better ways to raise cash for capital, primarily through bonds and loans. Not only that, but it also reduces the value of the shares which goes against shareholder's interests. Furthermore, Activision won't being paying substantially more to shareholders, only about $684,000 more per year in form of dividends, that's not bad from cashing in $55 million, although it's still a retarded move.
There is no such thing as free money that's true. However, this $55 million came from something the company shouldn't or can't use to reinvest along with money from interested buyers, not from the company's cash or profits.
I've read most of the posts in this thread and from what I understand Kotick gained free shares. The shares are not a part of Activision's reserves so giving them to Kotick neither hurts nor helps the Company.
But where are those shares coming from? So far I've heard that they just dilute the value of shares of other shareholders. And from you I'm not sure what I'm hearing. How would Kotick make $510,000 if Activision bought all his $55 million in shares 5 years from now?
On topic: $55 million is a lot. If we assume that a good developer costs $100,000 if you want to keep them for a year, and then you double that for health care, then that's 200,000 per employee for a year. You could hire 250 developers for a year to work on any product you wanted (and have $5mil left over).. An educational tool. A next gen game. Anything, but the chances of that game catching on with so little invested in marketing against the big brand names is small. Kotick happens to work at a Company that is doing well in the short term. Activision, by continuing to release extensions to its successful brands, can make more guaranteed money.
$55 mil could be used on just improving the lives of the current developers too. It's a lot of money.
After reading most of this thread, I think people here don't get the economics of this. He got a vast majority of his money through his own smart business decisions, the rest of his salary is of course enormous because he calls the shots at the top level of an enormous gaming industry leader when it comes to several genre's sales. This is not capitalism at its worst by any stretch. The title is sensationalist, and this move was an enormous risk on his own part, had he not built the company up to its bloodsucking, shit game producing, mass money making self, he would have lost an enormous amount of money. This isn't him fucking over his company and siphoning off money, this is him making money while making money, which any wealthy person knows is a great way to increase income. If you can make money by investing or devesting in yourself while you do your job, why not do it?
Unfortunatley maximize shareholder value does not necessarily mean maximize excellence of products sold. I don't think (most of) the dissenters in this thread would argue that capitalism is bad, only that the methods Activision is using to maximize said shareholder value do not mean higher quality games for us hardcore fans.
On April 29 2013 00:00 docvoc wrote: After reading most of this thread, I think people here don't get the economics of this. He got a vast majority of his money through his own smart business decisions, the rest of his salary is of course enormous because he calls the shots at the top level of an enormous gaming industry leader when it comes to several genre's sales. This is not capitalism at its worst by any stretch. The title is sensationalist, and this move was an enormous risk on his own part, had he not built the company up to its bloodsucking, shit game producing, mass money making self, he would have lost an enormous amount of money. This isn't him fucking over his company and siphoning off money, this is him making money while making money, which any wealthy person knows is a great way to increase income. If you can make money by investing or devesting in yourself while you do your job, why not do it?
He does nothing productive, so he does not deserve that much money ... Calling the big shots ? I laugh at that, big shots are beeing called by analysts and other people he is just the dumb figure head who steals all the credit but does nothing to deserve it. I'd sooner see the game developers getting a raise then this person.
On April 29 2013 00:00 docvoc wrote: After reading most of this thread, I think people here don't get the economics of this. He got a vast majority of his money through his own smart business decisions, the rest of his salary is of course enormous because he calls the shots at the top level of an enormous gaming industry leader when it comes to several genre's sales. This is not capitalism at its worst by any stretch. The title is sensationalist, and this move was an enormous risk on his own part, had he not built the company up to its bloodsucking, shit game producing, mass money making self, he would have lost an enormous amount of money. This isn't him fucking over his company and siphoning off money, this is him making money while making money, which any wealthy person knows is a great way to increase income. If you can make money by investing or devesting in yourself while you do your job, why not do it?
He does nothing productive, so he does not deserve that much money ... Calling the big shots ? I laugh at that, big shots are beeing called by analysts and other people he is just the dumb figure head who steals all the credit but does nothing to deserve it. I'd sooner see the game developers getting a raise then this person.
If the board is willing to pay him however much in vetted stock options, he deserves to make that much money.
Nobody "deserves" to make money. You earn the money people are willing to pay you for your services.
On April 29 2013 00:00 docvoc wrote: After reading most of this thread, I think people here don't get the economics of this. He got a vast majority of his money through his own smart business decisions, the rest of his salary is of course enormous because he calls the shots at the top level of an enormous gaming industry leader when it comes to several genre's sales. This is not capitalism at its worst by any stretch. The title is sensationalist, and this move was an enormous risk on his own part, had he not built the company up to its bloodsucking, shit game producing, mass money making self, he would have lost an enormous amount of money. This isn't him fucking over his company and siphoning off money, this is him making money while making money, which any wealthy person knows is a great way to increase income. If you can make money by investing or devesting in yourself while you do your job, why not do it?
He does nothing productive, so he does not deserve that much money ... Calling the big shots ? I laugh at that, big shots are beeing called by analysts and other people he is just the dumb figure head who steals all the credit but does nothing to deserve it. I'd sooner see the game developers getting a raise then this person.
Like it or not he is the CEO that is presiding over all these operations, so I don't really see how you can say that he doesn't "call the big shots". True, he doesn't actually make anything like the developers, but you can make that argument for virtually every CEO. Paul Otellini does not design chips for Intel. Steve Ballmer does not design Microsoft's tablets and operating system. If you think CEOs in general are being paid too generously, then that's a different argument entirely.
And really, the question of how much money he "deserves" is not decided by us. Bobby Kotick is not paid for his ability to make good games. He's paid for his ability to make money for the company, and clearly he's done that. I hate Activision and I hate Bobby Kotick, but this is how things work. If Activision/Blizzard is paying Kotick a shit ton of money and he doesn't deliver, then they're just fucking themselves over and we should let them get on with it. I certainly wouldn't care if Activision went bankrupt. Just vote with your wallet and boycott Activision games (as I suspect many of you already do).
Sweet. Am I going to get better games as a result of this? Probably not and so I don't really care.
Not related to Bobby Kotick specifically, but these are some great thoughts by Shamus Young on AAA Gaming leadership
Like I said last week, the main reason EA is badly run isn't because the leaders are bad guys, come to ruin all our Christmas releases with their Day 1 DLC. It's not corporate greed, or that the company is "too big". The problem with EA is that it's an entertainment software company and the majority of the EA leadership doesn't have a background in software or entertainment. They are "money men" - people with a background in venture capital, management, and overseeing large established industries. Before EA, Riccitiello's job was running the Bakery Division of the Sara Lee corporation. This sort of industrial and financial oversight work is radically different from producing software in this young and rapidly changing new media. Basically, these men are out of their depth and out of their area of expertise. These guys don't work in software and don't play games, yet they're running a company that requires a keen understanding of both. They're trying to reach consumers and shape public opinion, but they don't have a firm grasp of gaming news or the culture that surrounds the hobby.
Oh, I'm sure they "play" games in the sense that they sample their own company products, but I seriously doubt any of them really go home and click away at Starcraft or Assassin's Creed late into the night. I admit this is speculation on my part, but really: Could someone who plays games and is immersed in the culture make the mistakes EA has? Ubisoft had a horrible time with their always-on DRM and eventually abandoned it. Blizzard generated a ton of negative press when the always-on requirement of Diablo III became problematic. Then EA repeated those mistakes, only more seriously and on a grander scale, even though they had recent events to inform their decision-making.
Sure a company CAN pay whatever they want to their CEO and I guess that's a demonstration of what people are willing to pay. And one might even say they earned it because they made strategic decisions or some such. But for me as a gamer, am I going to get better games because of guys like Bobby? If not, then I can accept the 'why' of large pay raise, but I certainly don't have to like it. Nor do I have to think that it will in anyway increase my gaming experience.
On April 28 2013 23:46 StarStruck wrote: 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. -_-
Dot dot dot... Well yeah I had forgotten about that. I'm a sap for having bought the CE of D3 too. High fives of shame =(. I did make just over a grand selling my stuff though
On April 29 2013 00:30 Bulkers wrote: Bobby got a sinecure job, only 1 out of milions can get, and lets be honest all of us are angry at him because we envy him...
Some of us just dislike him because he is a horrible person. There are way richer people in the world than Bobby Kotick that I admire and look up to.
If the CEO is significantly overpaid relative to his value, maybe you should short Activision's stock. Since it's so obvious that they're overpaying someone who provides little value, and underpaying the people who add real value to the company, it can't continue to outperform other companies for very long.
Unless, of course, you're not so confident and you're just talking out of your ass. Then don't short the stock.
Like I said last week, the main reason EA is badly run isn't because the leaders are bad guys, come to ruin all our Christmas releases with their Day 1 DLC. It's not corporate greed, or that the company is "too big". The problem with EA is that it's an entertainment software company and the majority of the EA leadership doesn't have a background in software or entertainment. They are "money men" - people with a background in venture capital, management, and overseeing large established industries. Before EA, Riccitiello's job was running the Bakery Division of the Sara Lee corporation. This sort of industrial and financial oversight work is radically different from producing software in this young and rapidly changing new media. Basically, these men are out of their depth and out of their area of expertise. These guys don't work in software and don't play games, yet they're running a company that requires a keen understanding of both. They're trying to reach consumers and shape public opinion, but they don't have a firm grasp of gaming news or the culture that surrounds the hobby.
Oh, I'm sure they "play" games in the sense that they sample their own company products, but I seriously doubt any of them really go home and click away at Starcraft or Assassin's Creed late into the night. I admit this is speculation on my part, but really: Could someone who plays games and is immersed in the culture make the mistakes EA has? Ubisoft had a horrible time with their always-on DRM and eventually abandoned it. Blizzard generated a ton of negative press when the always-on requirement of Diablo III became problematic. Then EA repeated those mistakes, only more seriously and on a grander scale, even though they had recent events to inform their decision-making.
Sure a company CAN pay whatever they want to their CEO and I guess that's a demonstration of what people are willing to pay. And one might even say they earned it because they made strategic decisions or some such. But for me as a gamer, am I going to get better games because of guys like Bobby? If not, then I can accept the 'why' of large pay raise, but I certainly don't have to like it. Nor do I have to think that it will in anyway increase my gaming experience.
I don't really buy that for most CEO positions though. Yes, it's a plus but CEOs do that sort of thing all the time. Anyway, I know several people who turned down such positions because they actually like having a grip/handle on the company affairs. Not to say you cannot be a hands-on CEO and that's one of the things I pointed out when that topic came up, but they turned that down. ~_~
On April 28 2013 22:23 blug wrote: That is the problem with people these days, they are self entitled and feel as though Blizzard owe them something.
That is the exact opposite of the problem with people these days. You can call it self entitlement all you want, but in fact those people are only entitled to their opinions - and if their opinion is that Blizzard, Activision, EA, whoever delivered a trash product, then they have a perfectly valid right to voice it. In fact, it's in their best interest to do so (along with not actually buying the product).
The actual problem with people/consumers these days is that they are too lazy, too ignorant, or both.
On April 28 2013 22:23 blug wrote: That is the problem with people these days, they are self entitled and feel as though Blizzard owe them something.
That is the exact opposite of the problem with people these days. You can call it self entitlement all you want, but in fact those people are only entitled to their opinions - and if their opinion is that Blizzard, Activision, EA, whoever delivered a trash product, then they have a perfectly valid right to voice it. In fact, it's in their best interest to do so (along with not actually buying the product).
The actual problem with people/consumers these days is that they are too lazy, too ignorant, or both.
We also have the choice not to buy such products though, but the vast majority do. Look, you can be or call yourself a smart consumer all you want. You cannot stop the masses & eventually you'll find yourself guilty of buying something you don't really need or want. In some cases, you're going to think the product you just bought is garbage.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
I'm going to jump in here due to the gross inaccuracies and exaggerations you've put out. First off, Blizzard Activision has done extremely well during its last quarter, generating about $1.8 billion with a profit of about $350 million. Overall in 2012, the company generated about $5 billion (memory is fuzzy) with over $1 billion in profits for the year. Compare this with other publishers like EA and the video game industry overall, the publisher has been ahead of the curve in the industry. To shareholders point of view, this man absolutely deserves a raise, but it wasn't in form of cold hard cash, it was in the form of additional stocks, not directly from profits. This is absolutely not a 800% raise, nor is it a raise at all. Instead, he simply has more stake/ownership into the company now.
In most cases, one would want to hold onto stocks for few years than to sell them in order to raise cash for reinvestment/capital. It's better to simply use the profits they have or take out a loan from a bank which the company has been doing.
Now, you ask "how about reinvesting some of that money back into the company", and the company has indeed been doing that last year. Of the $1 billion profits from 2012, about $500 million went to shareholders, and most or rest of the $500 million went back into the company; Kotick's additional shares are not part of this.
IMO, Kotick has made the company a money making machine, and from that viewpoint, deserves the compensation.
I agree that the 800% raise title is quite sensationalist and not actually true.
I think you are missing the point though. A games developer should not be solely looking at the bottom line, if it was all about the money, why is Blizzard even in the gaming industry at all?
Second of all. Either the shares are invested back in the company, in which case, the company still loses the 55 million while Kotick earns 55 million. Or the shares are sold to the public, in which case, more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm, and Kotick still earns a substantial amount of money which he doesn't even need.
Either way its 55 million the company could have used to invest back into the company. There is no such thing as free money.
Even though a game company should focus on making games, the company is owned by thousands of people, groups, and institutions of diverse profile with a common goal: increase the value of the company. They effectively own the company, and therefore, the company's ultimate goal is to increase the value of the company. Creating video games is a means to this as it should.
I'm not understanding the logic of:
"shares being invested back into company" = "company still loses $55 million" + "Kotick earns $55 million"
In form of share buybacks, the shares are erased, reducing the number of stocks while maintaining the value of the company, and therefore increasing the value of the remaining stocks. The increase in value of stocks doesn't all go to Kotick, it gets distributed evenly among all the shareholders. Based on the current stats of Activision stocks, Kotick would only earn at most $510,000 more if Activision buybacks $55 million worth of shares.
"shares being sold to the public in which case more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm"
In form of Activision owning at least $55 million worth of shares and selling them to the market in order to raise capital. That is financially a stupid decision that can only be seen as an act of desperation. There are far better ways to raise cash for capital, primarily through bonds and loans. Not only that, but it also reduces the value of the shares which goes against shareholder's interests. Furthermore, Activision won't being paying substantially more to shareholders, only about $684,000 more per year in form of dividends, that's not bad from cashing in $55 million, although it's still a retarded move.
There is no such thing as free money that's true. However, this $55 million came from something the company shouldn't or can't use to reinvest along with money from interested buyers, not from the company's cash or profits.
I've read most of the posts in this thread and from what I understand Kotick gained free shares. The shares are not a part of Activision's reserves so giving them to Kotick neither hurts nor helps the Company.
But where are those shares coming from? So far I've heard that they just dilute the value of shares of other shareholders. And from you I'm not sure what I'm hearing. How would Kotick make $510,000 if Activision bought all his $55 million in shares 5 years from now?
On topic: $55 million is a lot. If we assume that a good developer costs $100,000 if you want to keep them for a year, and then you double that for health care, then that's 200,000 per employee for a year. You could hire 250 developers for a year to work on any product you wanted (and have $5mil left over).. An educational tool. A next gen game. Anything, but the chances of that game catching on with so little invested in marketing against the big brand names is small. Kotick happens to work at a Company that is doing well in the short term. Activision, by continuing to release extensions to its successful brands, can make more guaranteed money.
$55 mil could be used on just improving the lives of the current developers too. It's a lot of money.
These shares are likely to have come from Activision itself or Kotick was given a stock option to buy these stocks at a certain price that is most likely lower than the market price. Either way, these do not dilute the value of shares.
If Activision bought $55 million worth of shares, then this would increase the rest of the shares by sum of $55 million. Kotick, as CEO, would be considered an insider, a group that owns .93% of Activision. This would mean the group's stocks would increase in value by sum of roughly $55 million * .93% = $511,000. This is the maximum Kotick would earn assuming he's the only insider which is clearly false. So he most likely gains less than that.
$55 million to a company worth $16.50 billion that just generated $1 billion profits from last year is not a lot at all. It may be to us, but definitely not to the company. It's already put in about $500 million into the company itself from profits last year.
IMO, Activision is doing well because Kotick has been aggressive with release schedules and marketing of its key titles. Call him an evil bastard, but the company has done financially well, especially when compared to other game companies. I prefer this company with an audience that seems to both hate, yet more than able to give a lot of money to this company over a company like EA, Ubisoft, Take2, etc.
CEO of a company that makes the 2 most played game currently for like 5 years(WOW and COD) on top of a that all the other games they make. They are extremely profitable in a down economy the man has kept this business strong. Get as mad as you want but if activision paid him 200 Million I wouldn't even blink. If he keeps making them money and he is doing a good job who cares what they pay him qq all you want that you don't think people need that much money that is not how compensation in the business world works he will get what he deserves and in a years time if he is no longer working well he will be gone in a second.
On April 29 2013 01:33 naastyOne wrote: For all the haters of CEO`s pay, i have to ask you, how come companies with less well payed CEOs do not outcompit the "fat cats"?
How come investors do not dump him and use his "overwhelming" sellar to hold into high-valued employees or just to make more profit?
Aperently, the overall CEO`s level of pay is justified, since the only corporate structure left, is the best one.
blizzard was one such company, then they got merged with the fat cat yo
fat cats do not try to compete, they just absorb the competition
but it's ok that's the spirit of capitalism right?
It's really pathetic, now you guys put the next disc. "He doesn't even play games".
A CEO is required to run the company well, not to play games all day. You just assume he doesn't know his product as much as he should. Then what happened to delegation and those awesome people the make the games.
Pure disgrace... It's about minding your own business. "Hey he is old, he must not know anything about games" What about those CEO who knew about games and bankrupts their company. I can name tens of them. About having fun making games... A company is not a kindergarten, professionals enjoy people acting professionally. When you run 50 millions $ budget, you can act like you are 4 friends making a game. It's clockwork, it's a factory, that's why talented guys go work in small studios all the time, start ups... Then when they fail, they get back to a big company, happy to have incomes... Until they try again until they make an awesome game. Making game is risky, Venture Capitalist understand the risks.
, I'm sure Blizzard got into business with activsion for the best intentions and what resulted from that is just... well this. Activision tried to put "innovation" into the games and everyone basically shut them down because the idea was so profoundly retarded, however, they are trying to make a decent image in the community. So all-and-all everyone just have to deal with it as along as Activision is around the only way we can make them innovate is voice our opinions and hope that the best comes out of it.
Kind of like how everyone unanimously agreed that the original "Real ID" thing was stupid af.
Making game is risky, Venture Capitalist understand the risks.
They dont understand it, they do try to evaluate if its worthwhile or not based on statistics and whatever data on hand, but they never accurately predict what will happen.
Defend your economic ideas all you want but keep some respect for the disagreement of others.
If you ask me, and I'm an avid investor in stocks, short-term goals and results (AKA useless quarterly reports) are detrimental to actual growth. I'd rather have slower sustained growth over the knee jerk reactions we have everyday on the markets. Banking and greed is ruining everything except for a select few pulling the strings or deliberatly running the world under.
Its the same short-sightedness which puts politics at a standstill. Nobody is willing to take the risk or to wait for the results of major shifts in policies.
Any idea or long term development cycle is shunned on the basis that it is not immediatly profitable or observable.
Regarding the gaming industry in general, more and more we are seeing a shift to console or mobile (?) gaming and I believe computer gaming will become a niche market once more in the future or plain out dissapear. Games are nowadays built around a limited controller or with asinine depth, as they are targeted primarely towards kids or teenagers. Gamers who started out on the computer are trending out and spending less as they get older.
It's times like this where I'm proud to say, I bit the bullet and didn't purchase HoTS. While there are other complaints I have, a $40 dollar **** you will do.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
Hm... while I dislike filthy richness, I don't mind that much if said richness is achieved by working in a private industry and doesn't hurt people. Don't get me wrong it's still excessive and could be invested in something else, but who cares, it's his business I guess.
Completely different is the situation in which privates enrich themselves with state funding, or when the heavy enrichment hurts the public services. In my country the biggest examples are the education and healthcare markets. That actually sucks balls.
And WTF to whomever said developers work harder than teachers, and other service professionals. WTF man, teachers are a crucial part of education which forms a fundamental part of the entire society. And teaching is MUCH more of a lifestyle than game development. Most good school teachers I know spend most of their time doing school stuff, my few good teachers used to study and take care of lessons etc most of every day, way into the night, for a ridiculously low wage. Plus, if you feel you made a huge sacrifice to learn C++ then maybe you picked the wrong career? You chose to sacrifice your social life, that's probably not necessary.
As a doctor I don't complain, I get decent wages, but don't say service professionals work little. Doctors and nurses can go on 72+ hour periods at work, rest for 12 hours, then go on shift again, it happens all the time. I had a friend who spent 90 continued hours at the hospital. Freaking 90 hrs!!
I'm not sure how to react to a majority of the comments here. First, it's nice to see a company besides EA getting some hate for once, but is this really something that controversial? I thought everyone knew that CEOs of big companies, especially the more successful ones, make biiiiig money. Are people here mad because they don't think he deserves it (which is up for debate; I would argue that CEOs have really difficult jobs that require their particular skillset, hence the ridiculous salaries to compensate for demand), or are people mad because they are just against the principle of one man making so much money?
On April 29 2013 01:45 papaz wrote: I don't mind anyone making big bucks, however how about all the devs at Blizzard and Activision. Do they get the same credit if all goes well?
I guess not...
Can't speak for Activision specifically, but stock options are pretty common in the tech industry for the rank and file employees.
Being that they are the only company making greater profits in the biggest bear market since the 1980's for video games, Kotick deserves to be richly rewarded. That he gets 64million is American Capitalism for ya. Hell, a quarterback for Green Bay got 110million contract too. When you are at the top in USA things get obscenely good...
Making game is risky, Venture Capitalist understand the risks.
They dont understand it, they do try to evaluate if its worthwhile or not based on statistics and whatever data on hand, but they never accurately predict what will happen.
Defend your economic ideas all you want but keep some respect for the disagreement of others.
If you ask me, and I'm an avid investor in stocks, short-term goals and results (AKA useless quarterly reports) are detrimental to actual growth. I'd rather have slower sustained growth over the knee jerk reactions we have everyday on the markets. Banking and greed is ruining everything except for a select few pulling the strings or deliberately running the world under.
Its the same short-sightedness which puts politics at a standstill. Nobody is willing to take the risk or to wait for the results of major shifts in policies.
Any idea or long term development cycle is shunned on the basis that it is not immediately profitable or observable.
Regarding the gaming industry in general, more and more we are seeing a shift to console or mobile (?) gaming and I believe computer gaming will become a niche market once more in the future or plain out dispensary. Games are nowadays built around a limited controller or with asinine depth, as they are targeted primarily towards kids or teenagers. Gamers who started out on the computer are trending out and spending less as they get older.
We fully agree. Sorry my wording was aggressive. I think if we go deeper, there is much to talk about. Why is banking in such a situation, there are so many roots to the evil and in the end, it's hard to draw a conclusion on what is the reason for overpaid CEOs.
In France, In Finland, you are the same people sitting on the board of many companies, it creates a lot of conflict of interest; how can you deny a raise to the guy who approved your raise last week. Again this is a very short sighted outsider comment from me.
I don't like populism. I believe in competition, that if someone does things wrong, someone else will come to take their place very fast. I think there are few counter example to this (In politics, in advanced specialized tech fields (Medicine might be one hard nut to crack)
I think you are right on the gaming industry shift, but there is also now more opportunity to write once/run everywhere than there was before. Games are developed in easily portable way, that's the reason we still get pc games. Maybe we will start to see more multiplatform games in the sense that you pause your game on the PC, go to the bus and pick up where you left it, on your phone... Who knows...
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this. If the man is running the company, he has the power to set his payment to be whatever he wants, so long as the company can afford it. The man is doing a job and getting paid for it. Get over it.
On April 29 2013 01:33 naastyOne wrote: For all the haters of CEO`s pay, i have to ask you, how come companies with less well payed CEOs do not outcompit the "fat cats"?
About 10. ~10 companies (giant companies) have CEOs with total comp in the $1 - $100k range (most of those are at $1).
So yea, not very common in the US.
What is common outside of the US (and China) is to not have this >1000x differential between the highest paid and average. For example in Germany. 100x maybe, oftentimes less. For example some of the biggest companies in Germany pay $10m total comp.
To everyone who thinks that Bobby Kotick does something for the company - wrong. If you think that the developers themselves are responsible for the terribly-repeative CoDs we get every year, well they're not - Kotick is the CEO. He makes the decisions and yes - they make money but of what? Of all the (not adding a racist word) who actually like to get the same product every year and still pay the same premium price.
On April 29 2013 03:42 synd wrote: To everyone who thinks that Bobby Kotick does something for the company - wrong. If you think that the developers themselves are responsible for the terribly-repeative CoDs we get every year, well they're not - Kotick is the CEO. He makes the decisions and yes - they make money but of what? Of all the (not adding a racist word) who actually like to get the same product every year and still pay the same premium price.
That's the customer's choice. I dislike CoD fanboys just as much as everyone, but the truth is if demand exists, and Kotick is the one to order Activision to make supply for that demand, well, they're gonna get money.
Anyways, I'm sure that if people suddenly stopped buying CoD he'd find something else to milk, that's what big businesses do.
On April 29 2013 03:29 TheLOLas wrote: I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this. If the man is running the company, he has the power to set his payment to be whatever he wants, so long as the company can afford it. The man is doing a job and getting paid for it. Get over it.
I know compensation/ benefits are not taught in general but statements like these are misinformation. No public company CEO sets their own salary. You answer to the shareholders and the board.
If he is shitty, he will be gone. But people give them the big money. The top and bottom line speaks for itself. Shareholder get em capital growth and dividends, Kotick gets his ez moneh.
He's getting paid big bucks because Activision-Blizzard's stock has been on a tear for the past few months. His first duty is to shareholders, not customers. Besides, games like CoD and SCII are doing pretty damn well in terms of sales, despite the outrage from "gamer" types.
Better question would be not whether Kotick deserves more compensation, but whether we should be talking shit to all the gamers that buy Activision - Blizzard games. As much as Kotick doesn't have a good reputation among gamers, his current standing owes to gamers who have bought the company's products.
IMO, it's easier to blame a fat cat than to blame ourselves and other gamers. Don't mind the fact that gamers have given this company over $5 billion last year. Let's just get angry that this guy is $55 million richer. It's a stupid position for someone to rant over a person running the company while at the same time, paying its products and services.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
but....but...but...then we can't get our pitchforks!
ITT: People who don't fully grasp economics and business
I have a master's degree in economics, and I'll still grap my pitchfork. 10 million on a yearly basis + his regular salary is not justified considering the damages he's done to the company, and in particular to the Blizzard brand (due to D3).
The fact that shortterm profits are rewarded over longterm company management is in my opinion by far the largest contributing factor to what's wrong with corporate economics today.
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games.
You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion?
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games.
You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion?
ROFL you think they knew the hardcore fans wouldn't like it? And they "deceived" their loyal customers?... Christ people on the internet sometimes...
By the time the game was out, EVERYONE and their mother knew what it was all about, I don't know what they expected.
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful.
As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over or the necessity of bombing the public with massive advertising campaigns. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
On April 28 2013 14:34 Disregard wrote: He doesn't receive all that in cash its most shares since he bought a portion of Activision back then, still ridiculous. Everyone hates him but hes loaded what can you do capitalism at its best.
Fair enough, but corporate logic dictates that a CEO that is well compensated is less likely to leave the company if you give him money that reflects his results.
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful.
As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over or the necessity of bombing the public with massive advertising campaigns. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
It still doesn't matter. There is a demand for this type of game, no matter how terrible a different segment of the gamer population thinks it is. As long as such demand exists, there will be those supplying the goods, and since that demand is large, they'll do well, that is all. There is no blame in milking demanding customers, it's the way business is done that is all.
If you want to target a different audience with your business, making more unique experiences etc, that's great, but that doesn't mean you can fault Activision for seeking a more economically rewarding approach.
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful.
As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
From what I've heard a huge factor has been a combination of higher development costs and lower revenue. That's made developers/publishers much more risk adverse - better to cash in on a "sure thing" than trying something novel.
The cost of rent has gone up, the cost of food, and of gas, and the cost of CEOs is out of control, yet starting wages for deli clerks has been $8.09/hr since March 2005 (Colorado state UFCW local 7, in this case), which is down from the previous rate of $9.62/hr.
You could argue that the bubble has burst, and that you obviously can't get a good job with a high school degree like my dad did 40 years ago, but it seems that the poor are hurt more than the rich, if the rich even notice at all.
Grats to everyone who works the system and comes on the winning side of indentured servitude.
If i was an employee at ANY level in that company I would leave. I have no idea how this dude can sleep at night. Yeah you wanna pay a good ceo to keep him around but really now... he was probably doing just fine on the millions he allready had
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
That's a hell of an assumption. I can't remember the last time I've bought an EA game for instance. I didn't buy Diablo 3, I've only bought one 2 FPS in my life and both because they were awesome and unique (Mount & Blade Napoleonic Wars!) Where's my justice? Why is there a massive glut of similar FPS?
Truth is I don't expect it because it's too monstrously big for some gamers to not buy it and hope that something will change. There's too many others for there to be any sort of solidarity to demand greater quality of games by not purchasing this or that item.
You can try shuffling blame off on customers, but the producer have control over their product and they are the ones deciding the quality of the gameplay. Maybe some blame can be shared amongst customers, but 'success' of short term cash cows resulting in poorer gameplay lies squarely in the camp of the creaters and producers.
,,The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
wow thanks for that read.
its fucking disguisting, it exetly kinda did reminded me about the mafia.
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.
So CoD landed in his lap and he probably thinks he's hot shit lol. Kinda like how the Super Bowl landed in Flacco's lap and then he got an absurd raise. Lots of people get too much credit for their luck.
,,The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
wow thanks for that read.
its fucking disguisting, it exetly kinda did reminded me about the mafia.
Honestly I never understood how EA kept winning the "worst company in america" award over Activision. Then I realized Acti aren't ever a choice. I wonder how THAT happened :D
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.
That's partially why kickstarter works - a lot of the risk is shifted to the gamers that donate.
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.
That's partially why kickstarter works - a lot of the risk is shifted to the gamers that donate.
Absolutely, that's why I think anyone who takes issue with the biggies in the gaming industry ought to support these sorts of third-party operations. There is still the technological resource gap though, which is where I'm hoping the changes come from.
Kotick hasn't developed a single "100$ million franchise with annual sequel potential" in five years as CEO (Skylanders = Spyro IP). I can't wait for WoW's cashflow to slow down enough while at the same time CoD finally is behind us to see what's going to happen. So far as CEO he's been riding on things that came before him and finally introducing new IPs this year (probably Titan + X) will be the real test. For me he's only proven he can make sure they dish out annual CoDs.
What baffles me is that he apparently gets credit for their stock performance. Blizzard has been working on SC2 and D3 forever and they are kept on a long leash by him. WoW has been running since way before he took over. ActiBlizz just happens to own Blizzard. Kotick coincides with stock performance but apparently that's enough for the board to approve ludicrous compensation while his developers work 14h+ constant crunch.
On April 29 2013 05:15 Timerly wrote: Kotick hasn't developed a single "100$ million franchise with annual sequel potential" in five years as CEO (Skylanders = Spyro IP). I can't wait for WoW's cashflow to slow down enough while at the same time CoD finally is behind us to see what's going to happen. So far as CEO he's been riding on things that came before him and finally introducing new IPs this year (probably Titan + X) will be the real test. For me he's only proven he can make sure they dish out annual CoDs.
What baffles me is that he apparently gets credit for their stock performance. Blizzard has been working on SC2 and D3 forever and they are kept on a long leash by him. WoW has been running since way before he took over. ActiBlizz just happens to own Blizzard. Kotick coincides with stock performance but apparently that's enough for the board to approve ludicrous compensation while his developers work 14h+ constant crunch.
Kotick has done a good job managing this multi-billion dollar behemoth up from bankruptcy.. and we are now in an era where game companies are folding left and right, ATVI has managed to keep layoffs to a minimum.
i'm surprised a company this big.. is still good at "keeping its ear to the ground". Kotick deserves credit for this. Kotick is also keenly aware of just how crappy in general the economy is for non-essential crap like video games and blockbuster movies.
As long as Morhaime and Blizzard continue to have the level of autonomy they've had from 1995 to 2013.. then i'm happy with ATVI.
On April 29 2013 00:55 iSTime wrote: If the CEO is significantly overpaid relative to his value, maybe you should short Activision's stock. Since it's so obvious that they're overpaying someone who provides little value, and underpaying the people who add real value to the company, it can't continue to outperform other companies for very long.
Unless, of course, you're not so confident and you're just talking out of your ass. Then don't short the stock.
Market value is perception, not reality. The other business leaders circle jerk each other (perhaps justifiably so in this climate) and trust the persona of Bobby Kotick. The day other CEOs and their analysts view him as a detriment is the day I short Actvision-Blizzard.
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.
That's partially why kickstarter works - a lot of the risk is shifted to the gamers that donate.
Absolutely, that's why I think anyone who takes issue with the biggies in the gaming industry ought to support these sorts of third-party operations. There is still the technological resource gap though, which is where I'm hoping the changes come from.
Absolutely. Same goes for banks - if you hate them you better damn well belong to an alternative!
I was hoping this kind of stuff would get a boost from the JOBS Act but the regulation writing has taken a back seat to finishing Dodd-Frank.
On April 29 2013 05:15 Timerly wrote: Kotick hasn't developed a single "100$ million franchise with annual sequel potential" in five years as CEO (Skylanders = Spyro IP). I can't wait for WoW's cashflow to slow down enough while at the same time CoD finally is behind us to see what's going to happen. So far as CEO he's been riding on things that came before him and finally introducing new IPs this year (probably Titan + X) will be the real test. For me he's only proven he can make sure they dish out annual CoDs.
What baffles me is that he apparently gets credit for their stock performance. Blizzard has been working on SC2 and D3 forever and they are kept on a long leash by him. WoW has been running since way before he took over. ActiBlizz just happens to own Blizzard. Kotick coincides with stock performance but apparently that's enough for the board to approve ludicrous compensation while his developers work 14h+ constant crunch.
Hasn't he been the CEO since 1991?
He has been CEO of Activision since 91, but the combined companies since 2008. It's amazing that back in 2009 Forbes reported his salary was 954k and here only 4 years later it's 8.33 mil? I wish I had those kinds of raises - not complaining though, I have a neutral opinion on this.
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.
Back in the 70s/80s there was (practically) no internet to inform yourself on a video game's quality. Shelf space in big chains guaranteed success more than anything else. EA dominated shelf space. They pumped out "shovelware" which were extremely low budget games designed to gouge up all the shelf space and make sure everyone was walking out with an EA game. This lead to a market crash because consumers became disappointed by the value proposition of video games.
Today most people already know what game they want to buy before even getting to the store. It doesn't matter how many space inavders clones there are on the shelf if what you want is GTAIV. EA abandoned that shovelware strategy a while ago. Focusing on quality titles and improving working conditions.
I understand why Call of Duty is a limited game. Why it popular with some people while it isn't with some other people. What you cannot say is that it is Low Quality. The studios that pump out these games are fully staffed. The games cost millions to make and are generally well received by critics. Yes the multiplayer is cheap and most experienced players understand that having people spawn at random places is a mechanism to reward bad players with free kills on unsuspecting players with their backs turned. The maps are also designed so that no matter where you are you can get shot from multiple angles. I get that it is a bit vain to enjoy those games.
The fact is that the CoD games are made to be enjoyed by semi-casual gamers and it achieves that goal extremely well and with outstanding consistency.It's also a fact that more casual players play less and don't take their improvement seriously. That makes it so they demand less change because they don't have as much time to adapt to it. The games need to be fun right away and have minimal learning curve.
The important question is: Can serious gaming co-exist with Call of Duty? The answer is YES. A lot of high-budget, high-creativity titles are coming out. Portal, Heavy Rain, Shadow of the Colossus, GTA series, etc.
Then there are titles like ARMA and Battlefield. They are less arcade, steeper learning curve. Starcraft 2 fits in here.
Now there's the indie scene which is stronger than it ever was. Meatboy, FEZ, Minecraft, Cave Story(More of a pioneer), VVVVVV and the other humble bundle games.
Kotick gets paid to make the stock price as high as possible. While he has been CEO the stock price has risen. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I feel this is a relevant discussion:
NSFW
The following transcript was written for your convinience. It contains racist epithets which I chose to delete to avoid any possibility of thread derailment. It also contains many other swear words so I spoilered it.
WALLACE: "Man, these shits is right yo.'" POOT: "mmm hmmm" WALLACE: "Good with the hotsauce too though" POOT: "Mos' definately." WALLACE: "Yo D, you want some nuggets?" D'ANGELO: "Naa, go ahead man." WALLACE: "Man. Whoever invented these? He off the hook." POOT: "What?" WALLACE: "Mother fucker got the bone all the way out the damn chicken. 'Till he came along n*****s been chewing on drum sticks and shit getting their fingers all greasy. He said 'later for the bone', let's nugget that meat up and make some real money." POOT: "You think the man got paid?" WALLACE: "Who?" POOT: "The man who invented these." WALLACE: "Shit, he richer than a motherfucker." D'ANGELO: "Why? You think he get a percentage?" WALLACE: "...Why not? D'ANGELO: "N***** please, the man who invented them things, just some sad ass down at the basement of Mcdonalds, thinking up some shit to make some money for the real players" POOT: "Naa man that ain't right." D'ANGELO: "Fuck right. It aint' about right, it's about money. Now you think Ronald Mcdonald gonna go down that basement and say 'Hey mr. nugget, you the bomb, we selling chicken faster than you can tear the bone out, so I'm gonna write my clowny ass name on this fat ass check for you"? ... Shit. Man, the n***** who invented them things still working in the basement for regular wage thinking up some shit to make the fries taste better or some shit like that. Believe." WALLACE: "Still had the idea though."
On April 29 2013 05:02 Doodsmack wrote: So CoD landed in his lap and he probably thinks he's hot shit lol. Kinda like how the Super Bowl landed in Flacco's lap and then he got an absurd raise. Lots of people get too much credit for their luck.
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.
Back in the 70s/80s there was (practically) no internet to inform yourself on a video game's quality. Shelf space in big chains guaranteed success more than anything else. EA dominated shelf space. They pumped out "shovelware" which were extremely low budget games designed to gouge up all the shelf space and make sure everyone was walking out with an EA game. This lead to a market crash because consumers became disappointed by the value proposition of video games.
Today most people already know what game they want to buy before even getting to the store. It doesn't matter how many space inavders clones there are on the shelf if what you want is GTAIV. EA abandoned that shovelware strategy a while ago. Focusing on quality titles and improving working conditions.
I understand why Call of Duty is a limited game. Why it popular with some people while it isn't with some other people. What you cannot say is that it is Low Quality. The studios that pump out these games are fully staffed. The games cost millions to make and are generally well received by critics. Yes the multiplayer is cheap and most experienced players understand that having people spawn at random places is a mechanism to reward bad players with free kills on unsuspecting players with their backs turned. The maps are also designed so that no matter where you are you can get shot from multiple angles. I get that it is a bit vain to enjoy those games.
The fact is that the CoD games are made to be enjoyed by semi-casual gamers and it achieves that goal extremely well and with outstanding consistency.It's also a fact that more casual players play less and don't take their improvement seriously. That makes it so they demand less change because they don't have as much time to adapt to it. The games need to be fun right away and have minimal learning curve.
The important question is: Can serious gaming co-exist with Call of Duty? The answer is YES. A lot of high-budget, high-creativity titles are coming out. Portal, Heavy Rain, Shadow of the Colossus, GTA series, etc.
Then there are titles like ARMA and Battlefield. They are less arcade, steeper learning curve. Starcraft 2 fits in here.
Now there's the indie scene which is stronger than it ever was. Meatboy, FEZ, Minecraft, Cave Story(More of a pioneer), VVVVVV and the other humble bundle games.
So, you've established that EA has a history of producing shitty content, even all the way back to the shovelware days. That's great. Pursuits of Trip Hawkins aside, I never said that there weren't ANY good games being produced during the rise of the mega gaming conglomerates. In fact, each of those titles you listed are great examples of how games turn out better when not developed beneath the girth of an Activision or EA. Valve, Rockstar, and Quantic Dream (Team Ico under Sony is a different story) are all great examples of how being a third-party developer can allow one to do cool things with game design that would otherwise be considered "too risky". Furthermore, it's funny you mention indie game developers as evidence that the scene is ok when Markus Petrsson, the creator of Minecraft, has even been quoted as saying, "EA releases an 'indie bundle'? That's not how that works, EA," he said, "Indies are saving gaming. EA is methodically destroying it."
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.
It is interesting to see the jump from 2011-12, but I don't see what the problem with that is. The people (myself included to an extent; I'm a sucker for Infinity Ward's CoDs...) pay for their games all the time. Seeing it as "wrong" to simply gain tons of money because your business is successful seems besides the point to me. If you don't like watching the CEO of a company making major bank because their product has struck a chord with a large chunk of the culture, keep your money, or spend it on a competing product. There are tons of fantastic titles out there besides what Activision has to offer.
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 06:01 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 06:01 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.
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 06:01 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 06:01 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
company 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 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.
company 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 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.
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.
company 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.
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.
I never said anything about getting my way or about growing out my beard as I organize developers in a revolution, merely that a dislike for the way Activision does business is a tenable and reasonable position, one that can reasonably figure in the exorbitant CEO pay.
You think that taste is taste, and that it cannot be influenced in an inappropriate manner. I disagree.
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?
I would say it's a cultural thing that CEO's get paid taht much in the US
Here's a chart for CEO pay in NL it's in Dutch but you can probably read the table.
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.
company 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.
Because given the good stock times, the most likely scenario is Activision lay off the workers because of something associated with their work, for example, maybe they failed to meet sales target, maybe their projects weren't appealing to Activision and they didn't want to publish them, something like that. Your post seems to imply that Activision fired the employees because they needed the money, which would not make sense considering the news in this OP, which is why I believe it is not the case, they just didn't want them anymore, for whatever reasons, even if the statement says otherwise.
And this publisher in particular doesn't really want "good games", they want "high-sales" games, and we all know well people don't necessarily buy the best games around.
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?
I'm working for a bank that was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2003 when the central bank had to step in to guarantee them loans. Then this guy stepped in, and now it's looked at as one of the most stable and strongest banks in the world with a profit of 760.000.000 USD in the fourth quarter of 2012. The stock would plummet if he left basically, ie he has immense impact on the revenue.
Yes I think it's a bit of a nordic thing. The most popular prime ministers for instance are those who would greet the press in their backyard wearing a bathrobe with a cup of coffee, asking the journalists if they want some breakfast etc. People find that sort of down to earth behaviour very appealing. Prime ministers themselves earn about 220.000USD a year before taxes. Being 'a man of the people' is extremely important for any person with any kind of power who's going to be exposed to the media. I think the general idea is that a person doesn't really need more pay anyway, does he? It's still good, and he can do pretty much whatever he likes. It's not like he's hindered by a lack of money really. People in high offices often get paid a certain amount a long time after they leave as well. Their careers aren't really depending on them being fit and in a young age either, so it's not like athletes who have to quit working after 35 basically.
Yeah a very high variable component in pay is actually very good for the company. People make it sound like that the money that he is getting is as good as in his pocket. He would have to ensure the company runs really well for the next 5 years to see all of it. The stock options themselves generally aren't guaranteed to him (needs to pass a relative and absolute performance on his metrics) and then you have the stock price to account for as well, that is two layers of uncertainty.
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.
I never said anything about getting my way or about growing out my beard as I organize developers in a revolution, merely that a dislike for the way Activision does business is a tenable and reasonable position, one that can reasonably figure in the exorbitant CEO pay.
You think that taste is taste, and that it cannot be influenced in an inappropriate manner. I disagree.
Come on now farv the way you made your whole consumers' rights stand was very pushy
You say the way they do business but it really comes down to taste doesn't it. If these developers weren't making product - if they were bums, say - your opinion of what Bobby Kotick owes them would be different now wouldn't it. And I don't mean the developers who have a job, I mean the fired ones.
And guess what farv everybody and his cousin was getting computer science degrees in the mid-2000s theres kind of a glut in the market there. bobby kotick is to blame for that? welcome to the market
Oh I think that taste can be influenced in an inappropriate manner I just disagree with it. Sometimes a no is just a no and not a never.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
You really don't know anything about what being a teacher is like do you?
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.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
You really don't know anything about what being a teacher is like do you?
I agree, you had better re-educate yourself about what people go through on a daily basis for work. I'm sure you have a friend or two who have gone down the path of being a teacher for example.
A day in the life of being a hard-working game dev. is apparently tougher than being a single mom+firefighting+EMS+teaching for a living+peace keeping+nursing+youth worker combined. While you probably did not mean this literally, i would like you to provide some sort of proof for making a statement like that. It's pretty ludicrous.
the pay isn't all that special. the head of large companies are the most important jobs because tehy are in charge of larger scale operations.
for gamers anyway the complaint is about appeasing the lowest common denominator and focusing on flashy, sales pitch stuff instead of game depth and maintaining blizzard culture etc.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
On April 29 2013 05:36 Fyodor wrote: Back in the 70s/80s there was (practically) no internet to inform yourself on a video game's quality. Shelf space in big chains guaranteed success more than anything else. EA dominated shelf space. They pumped out "shovelware" which were extremely low budget games designed to gouge up all the shelf space and make sure everyone was walking out with an EA game. This lead to a market crash because consumers became disappointed by the value proposition of video games.
shelf space did not guarantee success. Great games like Asteroids, Missile Command, Donkey Kong. Arcade Pacman, MULE, Intellivision Baseball, and Lode Runner ruled the day based upon GAME PLAY.
Games like Intellivision Utopia and EA MULE had almost ZERO marketing behind them and became cult classics with an avid following of loyal players... that spread the game's popularity by word of mouth. Intellivision tried to jam "Star Strike" down people's throats... everyone said "fuck you mattel" and was playing Utopia. For 1982... it is 1 fucking great strategy game.
Renting games started in 1980 and people tested out games this way before buying.
the "1983 crash" was caused by every one pirating Commodore 64 games at the total cost of $0. The Commodore 64 has 13 times the memory and 255 times the processing power of an Atari 2600. Everyone was playing games on their C64.
EA made some really innovative titles when the company was first formed and they had very little "marketing muscle". Video companies in general had very little "marketing muscle" in the 1970s because the revenues were so low.
There was more profit in the ARCADE industry than in making home games. And again with ARCADE games .. players dropped a few quarters and if the game sucked balls.. they never played it again.
And then in 1983 the Commodore 64 was born and it annihilated teh Colecovision, Intellivision and Atari once people starting pirating games on their 1541 disk drives.
EA went from nothing in the 1980s to a giant in the 1990s based upon merit not "shovelware".
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
You really don't know anything about what being a teacher is like do you?
I agree, you had better re-educate yourself about what people go through on a daily basis for work. I'm sure you have a friend or two who have gone down the path of being a teacher for example.
A day in the life of being a hard-working game dev. is apparently tougher than being a single mom+firefighting+EMS+teaching for a living+peace keeping+nursing+youth worker combined. While you probably did not mean this literally, i would like you to provide some sort of proof for making a statement like that. It's pretty ludicrous.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
@Person #2: All you had to do was look at the discussion in next two pages, but I guess that's too hard.
And yeah I'd better reeducate myself, because I've worked in a large consulting firm, spent my entire life since 9 years old wanting to become a game developer, have game developer friends, I have friends who work in charity, I have friends who's mothers/fathers are nurses, my mother is a teacher, my uncle is a firefighter, my grandfather was a policeman and my fathers cousin was assistant commissioner of the police force (2nd highest rank), and my cousin is a professional football player. That pretty much covers every single example he gave.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 15:08 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 15:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:59 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
I guess the quality of life in your area may not be as good as mine, I mean it did seem really tough from what I saw (just not as much as employees for AAA title companies) so I thought I had the gist of it. It seems strange that slave wages are being paid out to any employee in your firms especially in the big four but I will concede my point as I have no proof to say its not. It was certainly far from the case from my experience.
However even though you think it might be bad, its still a mere shadow compared to working on an AAA title for some companies. I guess its really hard for people to gauge the difference until I give you an example.
How about being put into an interrogation room and being brought to tears, while being told you will never be paid until the game is finished, or getting fired after your work so they don't have to pay you.
Well Activision did just that on Modern Warfare 2.
Activision's investigation allegedly included a six-hour interrogation of West and Zampella in a windowless conference room. The plaintiffs state numerous Infinity Ward employees were also questioned and some even brought to tears during the interrogation. When West and Zampella refused to turn over their personal computers and cell phones, Activision's attorneys allegedly stated the pair was being insubordinate.
Just weeks before Messrs. West and Zampella were to receive the royalties for their hard work on Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired them in the hope that by doing so, it could avoid paying them what they had rightfully earned, and to seize control of the Infinity Ward Studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare branded games and had, apparently, decided it no longer wanted to live with.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
You also have to consider that we are in the wake of the GFC, so lay offs aren't that uncommon in any industry. Even in a booming industry, Kotick is absorbing then firing entire companies in the most dehumanising way possible. He hardly deserves this raise when a gaming industry should not be all about the money.
It really baffles me as to why people are shocked.... or even concerned.
Despite what perceived slights you may have from activision, he runs a highly profitable company, and when a CEO creates huge revenue for shareholders they are highly compensated.
Believe it or not, its the way the world works in every industry.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
No excuse?
Everybody thinks they are special and somehow different to the rest of the population. All you need is some perspective and you'd have the same excuse as everybody else.
You'd be the only person carrying 5 days worth of "healthy" food to your office. Oh and you probably will also be working weekends. I dunno about you but I'd rather spend my sliver of free time on something that's fun rather than preparing food.
If you can do that I commend your efforts, but I'd think you'd get tired of it after a while.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
If you're sleeping under your desk you don't really have the option to pack your own lunch. During crunch some studios keep their employees inside for weeks at a time, if not the entire crunch period. The industry seems to be getting a little better (some studios are putting in gyms and cafeterias) but not all.
On April 29 2013 14:26 Volgor wrote: Where the article about how Activision has increased the pay of all of it's employees due to this profit increase?
Many companies provide stock options to their employees like Kotick. However, unlike him, they are not required to disclose their compensation and what they do with it to the public unless they own significant percentage of the shares. It's as much private as one's salary and income.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
So what slugg is saying is, job #1 he has never worked in isnt anywhere near as hard as job #2 he has never worked in.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
No excuse?
Everybody thinks they are special and somehow different to the rest of the population. All you need is some perspective and you'd have the same excuse as everybody else.
You'd be the only person carrying 5 days worth of "healthy" food to your office. Oh and you probably will also be working weekends. I dunno about you but I'd rather spend my sliver of free time on something that's fun rather than preparing food.
If you can do that I commend your efforts, but I'd think you'd get tired of it after a while.
Depends on what your 5 days of healthy food is but id rather fucking look after myself then make every excuse in the world as to why I cannot be healthy , you're not the only one with programming friends and lots of the ones i know do look after themselves and love their job because they have a passion for what they are doing you are right now just talking about the one company that treats their workers like shit . You are being really specific , I am sure there are alot more people out there who really enjoy their job . You knock teachers a lot but there is one thing that happens to be at least similar between the two . You need to have a passion for what you are doing. If there job is so shitty and they are aware of this before going in , then they must be retarded, oh wait the programmers are not retarded . They know what they sign up for a lot of work , but you are most likely defending a profession that doesn't need defending at the moment . Oh and as a student who studies and stays up all night writing papers , reading my text books who also volunteers to help youth and others less fortunate then me i will take 30 min out of my day to take care of myself so i can operate at my best .
Edit : No I do not think myself special in anyway from the general population , but the excuses i hear are absolutely silly My mother is a financial advisor all she does is work she gets up at 6 and stops working when she falls asleep . Guess what , she still finds time to cook herself something instead of eating chips and drinking soda . Don't make excuses for people who's life you're not living .
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
So what slugg is saying is, job #1 he has never worked in isnt anywhere near as hard as job #2 he has never worked in.
Being a teacher myself, i can tell you one thing.
Lol.
You need passion for both jobs any dumbass can see that , I wouldn't say any one job is harder than the other. My family has alot of teachers in it and they are some of the hardest working most dedicated people i know , I have no idea what he is talking about .
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Go and find out how much money Neuer makes (the goalkeeper of bayern munich). then come and tell me if jumping left and right and catching balls is worth 20,000,000m euro's. even that girl that played in Twilight made that kind of money from that lousy trilogy.
Well I find this funny but I've done what little I can do. I will never give blizzard one more dollar again after D3. I know it doesn't really matter if it's just one individual but it's a matter of principle.
"Activision Publishing consistently works to align its costs with its revenues – this is an ongoing process. With the completion of development on Deadpool, we are taking a reduction in staff at High Moon Studios to better align our development talent against our slate. Approximately, 40 full-time employees will be impacted globally. We are offering those employees who are impacted outplacement counseling services."
"Like any successful business, Activision Publishing consistently works to align its costs with its revenues—this is an ongoing process. In 2013, we expect to release fewer games based on license properties and as a result are realigning our structure to better reflect the market opportunities and our slate. Approximately, 30 full-time employees have been impacted globally, which represents approximately one half of one percent of Activision Blizzard's employee population. We are offering those employees who are impacted outplacement counseling services."
Activision Blizzard, the video publisher, said on Wednesday that it was cutting 600 jobs globally in the unit that makes Internet games, including the company’s most profitable property, World of Warcraft, which has lost users in recent quarters.
Kotick earned it! More than 650 employees laid off in the past year, only reasonable their salaries and paychecks should go to somebody else in the company.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
So what slugg is saying is, job #1 he has never worked in isnt anywhere near as hard as job #2 he has never worked in.
@Person #1: Do you? My mother is a teacher, and holy fuck is that a cushy job compared to being a game developer for Activision. Out of all the options you could choose, you had to choose teacher...
I have yet to see a teacher who's spent their entire life from the age of 9-13 being the absolute best teacher possible, spending hours every day after school honing their teaching skills, and working 14 hours a day, many hours without pay and earning close to the minimum wage and worrying about job security. People need to get off their high horse about how hard it is to be a teacher, i agree its honourable, but its not close to any of the more difficult jobs out there.
And if you still don't agree, I've posted my previous discussion down below so you can get a grip.
Teachers in Germany have double the rate of early retirement due to health reasons compared to other public servants. When it was time for writing the final papers for the students (which is two or three times a year), my father would lock himself into his office and would be basically invisible to his family for a week or two, my mother just recently did it again, with over a week of 12+ hour days, 7 days a week.
As it happens, I do not only have two dutiful teachers as parents, I know a couple of really good programmers, one of them even being my bff when I was a teenager. Your age 9-13 thing sounds suspiciously like a tryhard programmer, not like a good one.
edit: and young teachers also have immense pressure to get good marks, as the supply is bigger than demand and only the better ones will become public servants. And for their first two years or so, they are sent anywhere within a 200 mile radius.
So what slugg is saying is, job #1 he has never worked in isnt anywhere near as hard as job #2 he has never worked in.
Being a teacher myself, i can tell you one thing.
Lol.
You need passion for both jobs any dumbass can see that , I wouldn't say any one job is harder than the other. My family has alot of teachers in it and they are some of the hardest working most dedicated people i know , I have no idea what he is talking about .
For the three of you, just rofl could you be more butthurt?
Not only are half your statements just plain stupid or ignorant, almost none of your statements have anything to do with the discussion or anything I wrote. I never said teachers don't work hard, I am saying game developer pay is disproportionate to the amount they work (and their skillset) and gave teaching as an example.
Please stop being so self-obsessed and realise that everything you said STILL pales in-comparison to being a developer at Activision. I've already posted what life is like there, your personal accounts of mummy and daddy and your "really good programmer friends" (who apparently don't have to practice to get good) still aren't close and have 0 relevance.
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.
Your parents work hard? well good for you so does everyone else.
Here's the original post because people are cutting out my comments and putting them out of context.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
On April 28 2013 15:08 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 15:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:59 yandere991 wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
So investment bankers deserve to be paid the most then going by your logic considering they absolutely shit on game developers in terms of hours worked per week. Hell I doubt game developers work harder than big4 auditors.
I've worked for Deloitte and that is just plain false.
Please keep talking if you would like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
The word is "doubt". GF worked at EY audit and she was racking up huge hours during tax season. IT guys at big4 work normal 9-5.
Last time I heard the .NET team were working up to 18 hour days in the final month of a project, but that's besides the point, as you mentioned auditors and I wasn't referring to IT.
Its not like we just work in this little bubble where we don't know what's going on in the other sectors. Its a single building and these organisations are heavy on communication we hear a about what goes on in each others sectors every month, and we also talk to people in other sectors during breaks.
I know they rack up more hours than normal employees but they still get to go home and have normal diets and earn a substantial amount more per hour worked. Also just look at how many employees get fired from Activision by Kotick every year, Job security is just so much better at a consulting firm than a games company.
I personally know employees from both worlds. I can tell you that crunch time and the environment for a games developer at companies like Activision is much worse.
The other thing though, I really want to emphasise the point that software developers spend their entire lives honing their skills. This is a lot less common at a consulting firm, you learn your stuff at uni and when you get home you don't continue to spend more time learning how to become a better accountant/consultant/etc.
Did your girlfriend start learning how to do a tax audit when she was 13 years old, and then continue spending hours learning how to do audits every day after school in her spare time?
For the set of skills and effort that a games developer has, they still don't earn anything close to a senior accountant/consultant at the big four.
Not sure if it is possible to get paid lower than big 4 since they already pay slave wages. Not too sure about job security since EY alone just fired 10 members from their EC team and apparently more purges are underway. I will concede that my big4 comparison was not researched but it was just a throw out for the IB comparison. BTW I work in consulting (not big4 accounting type consulting) and trust me the job security is not good at all. Purges purges everywhere, at least it isn't as bad as the IBs.
I guess the quality of life in your area may not be as good as mine, I mean it did seem really tough from what I saw (just not as much as employees for AAA title companies) so I thought I had the gist of it. It seems strange that slave wages are being paid out to any employee in your firms especially in the big four but I will concede my point as I have no proof to say its not. It was certainly far from the case from my experience.
However even though you think it might be bad, its still a mere shadow compared to working on an AAA title for some companies. I guess its really hard for people to gauge the difference until I give you an example.
How about being put into an interrogation room and being brought to tears, while being told you will never be paid until the game is finished, or getting fired after your work so they don't have to pay you.
Well Activision did just that on Modern Warfare 2.
Activision's investigation allegedly included a six-hour interrogation of West and Zampella in a windowless conference room. The plaintiffs state numerous Infinity Ward employees were also questioned and some even brought to tears during the interrogation. When West and Zampella refused to turn over their personal computers and cell phones, Activision's attorneys allegedly stated the pair was being insubordinate.
Just weeks before Messrs. West and Zampella were to receive the royalties for their hard work on Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired them in the hope that by doing so, it could avoid paying them what they had rightfully earned, and to seize control of the Infinity Ward Studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare branded games and had, apparently, decided it no longer wanted to live with.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
You also have to consider that we are in the wake of the GFC, so lay offs aren't that uncommon in any industry. Even in a booming industry, Kotick is absorbing then firing entire companies in the most dehumanising way possible. He hardly deserves this raise when a gaming industry should not be all about the money.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
No excuse?
Everybody thinks they are special and somehow different to the rest of the population. All you need is some perspective and you'd have the same excuse as everybody else.
You'd be the only person carrying 5 days worth of "healthy" food to your office. Oh and you probably will also be working weekends. I dunno about you but I'd rather spend my sliver of free time on something that's fun rather than preparing food.
If you can do that I commend your efforts, but I'd think you'd get tired of it after a while.
Depends on what your 5 days of healthy food is but id rather fucking look after myself then make every excuse in the world as to why I cannot be healthy , you're not the only one with programming friends and lots of the ones i know do look after themselves and love their job because they have a passion for what they are doing you are right now just talking about the one company that treats their workers like shit . You are being really specific , I am sure there are alot more people out there who really enjoy their job . You knock teachers a lot but there is one thing that happens to be at least similar between the two . You need to have a passion for what you are doing. If there job is so shitty and they are aware of this before going in , then they must be retarded, oh wait the programmers are not retarded . They know what they sign up for a lot of work , but you are most likely defending a profession that doesn't need defending at the moment . Oh and as a student who studies and stays up all night writing papers , reading my text books who also volunteers to help youth and others less fortunate then me i will take 30 min out of my day to take care of myself so i can operate at my best .
Edit : No I do not think myself special in anyway from the general population , but the excuses i hear are absolutely silly My mother is a financial advisor all she does is work she gets up at 6 and stops working when she falls asleep . Guess what , she still finds time to cook herself something instead of eating chips and drinking soda . Don't make excuses for people who's life you're not living .
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.
Also what happens a lot, such as in the MW2 case. InfinityWard was bought by Activision and then forced under Activisions rules. Its fair to say that these developers did not and could not see what was coming.
Most game developers did not know what they were getting themselves into, I eventually found out and completely overhauled my skillset. I am still an indie developer however and keep in touch with many games developers, one includes a lead programmer for Hitman 1,2,3.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
If you're sleeping under your desk you don't really have the option to pack your own lunch. During crunch some studios keep their employees inside for weeks at a time, if not the entire crunch period. The industry seems to be getting a little better (some studios are putting in gyms and cafeterias) but not all.
As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
Sounds to me like more nerds need to step up for themselves.
Getting forced to stick to a whole week of being in the office is ridiculous. Also, being a game developer is a very specific skillset, i'll grant you that, but the overall practice of programming is very valuable.
As long as you have a decent education and background in computer science, getting a job that doesn't suck the life out of you should be reasonably easy to get. That and government regulations should take care of that, but no one likes to be a whistleblower!
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
Sounds to me like more nerds need to step up for themselves.
Getting forced to stick to a whole week of being in the office is ridiculous. Also, being a game developer is a very specific skillset, i'll grant you that, but the overall practice of programming is very valuable.
As long as you have a decent education and background in computer science, getting a job that doesn't suck the life out of you should be reasonably easy to get. That and government regulations should take care of that, but no one likes to be a whistleblower!
I agree. There really needs to be a proper union for software developers (especially games), unfortunately I've found that many programmers are actually be quite conservatively minded or apathetic, I don't know why.
Currently good working environments are driven by demand, if you are a ThoughtWorks tier scripter, your working environment is luxury compared to a C++ developer. You not only get extremely good pay, but a great environment to work in as well, and they give it to them not because they demand it, but because employers have to claw on their hands and knees just to find a developer like that.
Being a top C++ developer will place you somewhere near the bottom of the rung for scripting languages.
You are going from programming in a shallow structured paradigm where obsessive compulsiveness over hardware resources is a requirement, to deep thinking functional programming where you are required to neglect hardware resources and prioritise code elegance and maintenance.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to by your first line. Do you work for InfinityWard?
If you are given a choice, then its not really relevant to what I'm talking about. This thread is about Activision, and I am mostly referring to the developers of that place.
I've worked for a games company too, it was the Australian branch for distribution of Nexon games and it was a great environment, however regular in-fighting on my project made me decide the place wasn't for me. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to by your first line. Do you work for InfinityWard?
If you are given a choice, then its not really relevant to what I'm talking about. This thread is about Activision, and I am mostly referring to the developers of that place.
I've worked for a games company too, it was the Australian branch for distribution of Nexon games and it was a great environment, however regular in-fighting on my project made me decide the place wasn't for me. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
You're missing the point that everyone who works at Activision chooses to work there knowing that crunch is a very real possibility. Everyone has their own reasons for accepting jobs, loving games, family needs money etc., but there are still plenty of other companies hiring if things are really that bad.
If you think these people have no choice then there's no point in discussing. You can make any number of excuses for people being in a job they hate but in the end they're just that, excuses.
Shame that its one fatcat getting all the reward rather than the content designers, marketers and everyone else involved with the actual physical work.
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.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to by your first line. Do you work for InfinityWard?
If you are given a choice, then its not really relevant to what I'm talking about. This thread is about Activision, and I am mostly referring to the developers of that place.
I've worked for a games company too, it was the Australian branch for distribution of Nexon games and it was a great environment, however regular in-fighting on my project made me decide the place wasn't for me. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
You're missing the point that everyone who works at Activision chooses to work there knowing that crunch is a very real possibility. Everyone has their own reasons for accepting jobs, loving games, family needs money etc., but there are still plenty of other companies hiring if things are really that bad.
If you think these people have no choice then there's no point in discussing. You can make any number of excuses for people being in a job they hate but in the end they're just that, excuses.
You're missing the point that people who work at Activision did not choose to work there.
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 :/
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 :/
Even Deloitte CE did. You had to write your own performance review, and if you could back your stuff up, and if your Teamlead/Manager agreed, you were looking at up to 20% more salary if things were going well.
Btw, I did work weekend overtime while I was there, but at 200% hourly rate
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 :/
Even Deloitte CE did. You had to write your own performance review, and if you could back your stuff up, and if your Teamlead/Manager agreed, you were looking at up to 20% more salary if things were going well.
Btw, I did work weekend overtime while I was there, but at 200% hourly rate
Financial firm? I'm going to say that those companies are known for compensating all levels of employees well.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to by your first line. Do you work for InfinityWard?
If you are given a choice, then its not really relevant to what I'm talking about. This thread is about Activision, and I am mostly referring to the developers of that place.
I've worked for a games company too, it was the Australian branch for distribution of Nexon games and it was a great environment, however regular in-fighting on my project made me decide the place wasn't for me. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
You're missing the point that everyone who works at Activision chooses to work there knowing that crunch is a very real possibility. Everyone has their own reasons for accepting jobs, loving games, family needs money etc., but there are still plenty of other companies hiring if things are really that bad.
If you think these people have no choice then there's no point in discussing. You can make any number of excuses for people being in a job they hate but in the end they're just that, excuses.
You're missing the point that people who work at Activision did not choose to work there.
On April 29 2013 20:11 ShamW0W wrote: As someone who has been in the industry for a while I can definitely say that you're able to maintain a healthy lifestyle easily if you choose to do so. I currently bring my lunch every day and have my own pool of snacks in my desk to avoid all of the typical snacks that are available in a game studio.
It all comes down to choice and self-control.
I'm curious, if its crunch time and your employers don't want you to leave for a whole week or even several weeks what do you do?
If this has never happened to you, then your experience is outside the realm of the discussion.
I've crunched, not sure who you are to try and talk about my experience.
And, when it's crunch time there's always a choice. If you've chosen to work at a company that doesn't value it's employees, and you've stayed there, then sure it may get rough. However, competent management understands that driving people into the ground isn't the best way to achieve results.
For all of the 'horror' stories you hear in our industry I hear just as many good ones, they just don't make good headlines. "Company gives employees the day off for achieving milestone" isn't as catchy.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to by your first line. Do you work for InfinityWard?
If you are given a choice, then its not really relevant to what I'm talking about. This thread is about Activision, and I am mostly referring to the developers of that place.
I've worked for a games company too, it was the Australian branch for distribution of Nexon games and it was a great environment, however regular in-fighting on my project made me decide the place wasn't for me. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
You're missing the point that everyone who works at Activision chooses to work there knowing that crunch is a very real possibility. Everyone has their own reasons for accepting jobs, loving games, family needs money etc., but there are still plenty of other companies hiring if things are really that bad.
If you think these people have no choice then there's no point in discussing. You can make any number of excuses for people being in a job they hate but in the end they're just that, excuses.
You're missing the point that people who work at Activision did not choose to work there.
Strong within you the reasoning is.
You get employed by awesome gaming company.
You've worked there, gain a solid reputation, friends, become a senior developer / manager.
Activision buys your company and fucks you over big time.
Your family expect you to receive the same wage.
So you decide to stay in the company and get your ass kicked because its too risky to leave and try and get an equally ranked job at another place with the same pay.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
No excuse?
Everybody thinks they are special and somehow different to the rest of the population. All you need is some perspective and you'd have the same excuse as everybody else.
You'd be the only person carrying 5 days worth of "healthy" food to your office. Oh and you probably will also be working weekends. I dunno about you but I'd rather spend my sliver of free time on something that's fun rather than preparing food.
If you can do that I commend your efforts, but I'd think you'd get tired of it after a while.
Depends on what your 5 days of healthy food is but id rather fucking look after myself then make every excuse in the world as to why I cannot be healthy , you're not the only one with programming friends and lots of the ones i know do look after themselves and love their job because they have a passion for what they are doing you are right now just talking about the one company that treats their workers like shit . You are being really specific , I am sure there are alot more people out there who really enjoy their job . You knock teachers a lot but there is one thing that happens to be at least similar between the two . You need to have a passion for what you are doing. If there job is so shitty and they are aware of this before going in , then they must be retarded, oh wait the programmers are not retarded . They know what they sign up for a lot of work , but you are most likely defending a profession that doesn't need defending at the moment . Oh and as a student who studies and stays up all night writing papers , reading my text books who also volunteers to help youth and others less fortunate then me i will take 30 min out of my day to take care of myself so i can operate at my best .
Edit : No I do not think myself special in anyway from the general population , but the excuses i hear are absolutely silly My mother is a financial advisor all she does is work she gets up at 6 and stops working when she falls asleep . Guess what , she still finds time to cook herself something instead of eating chips and drinking soda . Don't make excuses for people who's life you're not living .
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.
Also what happens a lot, such as in the MW2 case. InfinityWard was bought by Activision and then forced under Activisions rules. Its fair to say that these developers did not and could not see what was coming.
Most game developers did not know what they were getting themselves into, I eventually found out and completely overhauled my skillset. I am still an indie developer however and keep in touch with many games developers, one includes a lead programmer for Hitman 1,2,3.
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote: It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
Yeah you're right, its hardly anything. If I had 55 mill I would want to spend that in a year.
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote: [quote]
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
Stop being ignorant. Making computer games might sound fun, but the reality is the complete opposite for a lot of people. Being humanitarian has nothing to do with making money, money should go to people who put in the most effort, the hardest working developers are games developers, and its a tougher industry than all those jobs you mentioned combined.
Becoming a Teacher is a 3 year course, becoming a programmer is a whole lifestyle.
Did teachers painstakingly spend hours and hours every day after highschool sacrificing their social life so they could learn how to program in C++? No they probably went out to parties and had a social life like everyone else.
Do they work 16-20 hour days during crunch time and never get to see their family for weeks, while your diet consists of cans of soda and cheetos? No teachers work less hours than even normal employees.
Yet they probably get paid about the same amount.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Even though i mostly agree with your post, i find it hard to believe that programmers are forced into an unhealthy diet. Drinking soda and eathing cheetos is their own choice.
For some people, you have a vendor near your cubicle that spits out soda and chips for you and that's what you have for breakfast lunch and dinner because you have to work unpaid overtime and sleep in the office.
thats what i was thinking too haha, regardless iF it is bitch work or not i always eat healthy , i worked as a bee farmer were i had 12-14 hours days wearing this white suit for like three months in the summer and i always packed my own lunch . This job required me to get stung every day lift 120 pound ( 60kg) honey boxes . There is no excuse to not look after yourself just because it is easier.
If you're sleeping under your desk you don't really have the option to pack your own lunch. During crunch some studios keep their employees inside for weeks at a time, if not the entire crunch period. The industry seems to be getting a little better (some studios are putting in gyms and cafeterias) but not all.
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 :/
Even Deloitte CE did. You had to write your own performance review, and if you could back your stuff up, and if your Teamlead/Manager agreed, you were looking at up to 20% more salary if things were going well.
Btw, I did work weekend overtime while I was there, but at 200% hourly rate
Yeah you're right actually, we did a similar thing over here, I was once called in for a performance review over someone else, very awkward. I think only seniors got it. I was only there for 6 months so I just forgot lol.
All the other IT focused companies did not hand out bonuses, however the flat rate was still much higher than <insert financial firm here> + 20%.
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.
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.
On April 29 2013 23:31 sluggaslamoo wrote:
You're missing the point that people who work at Activision did not choose to work there.
I'm all for valuable and innovative CEO's making money hand over fist. But seriously...what does Kotick do?! Since when is simply "making decisions" considered a million dollar skill? I'd like my 6 kajabillionmillion dollar compensation for deciding on a salad for lunch today pleeeeeeeease.
On April 30 2013 02:04 Klondikebar wrote: I'm all for valuable and innovative CEO's making money hand over fist. But seriously...what does Kotick do?! Since when is simply "making decisions" considered a million dollar skill? I'd like my 6 kajabillionmillion dollar compensation for deciding on a salad for lunch today pleeeeeeeease.
If making decisions earns is a multi-million dollar skill then Mvp should be dining with Bill Gates in his solid gold limo. :-p
Wait, are people really thinking that Bobby Kotics receive this money at the expense of employees? Eh.. the only one getting fucked when excessive wages are paid are the actual capitalists.
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
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.
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.
Ok.. I am sure your idea will revolutionise business and save companies millions :3 C-suite is the most redundant part of a company... imagine the savings..
Lazy people who worked many years in the industries to the top and then shaking their legs while others make decisions that make companies profitable. Travesty that is capitalism.
We need equality for everyone! Same pay and same benefits for all!
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.
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.
You can say what you want about kotick but what you said is wrong. Just read his bio, his influence in the english market and what he has done to sony. Also the prices of guitar hero equipment are his decision.
The general idea or strategy which products and how they get thrown on the market are things that land on his desk.
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.
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%.
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.
I mean as a gamer I have to agree that kotick sucks as he just makes shitty cheap products and cuts costs everywhere, but at the same time it's not his fault for maximizing profit, it's what any person would do. The fault for him being successful rests with the people who buy all the shitty cod and other activision games despite them being awful and always the same. If he knows that if he makes the same game again with very little cost or changes and all the people will still buy it, why the hell would he spend extra money to make it better for no extra profit? Yeah it sucks, but that's how the world works.
Well the problem i have, i´m from the horse that i would attack the person itself. His decisions are top notch manager like with a realistic view on how the market and it´s customer works. The gamers get what they deserve it´s that simple. While i could get angry at some sentences he droped or how he manage the company in the lower levels.. the truth is, he´s right with what he said.
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.
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.
One important thing to remember when it comes to CEOs is that they're often capable of leading most any kind of company really. They're basically on a bidding market. They can always choose a higher bidder if they're good enough, and the CEOs of these large corporations usually are. Imo the bidding has spun away though, considering these people are paid gigantic amounts of money that could've been used elsewhere.
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote: I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games.
You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion?
ROFL you think they knew the hardcore fans wouldn't like it? And they "deceived" their loyal customers?... Christ people on the internet sometimes...
By the time the game was out, EVERYONE and their mother knew what it was all about, I don't know what they expected.
That's just not true. If that was the case the game wouldn't be the "fastest selling game of all times". I tried to return my copy two days after release and I know I wasn't alone. If I had a clue what this game actually contained I'd never buy it in the first place.
Diablo 2 was awesome and held me hostage on and off for ten years. I uninstalled Diablo 3 after 5 hours.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
You have chosen wisely, my son. Arguing with Hider is a fools errand. He will demand you lay out your points in a logical fashion, empirical fashion, so he can then cherry pick which to argue against. You are best not engage and move along.
I can understand you can feeling upset about Bobby Kotick getting a lot of money. I can't comment on the topic since since I know very little of the interworkings of Activision and I don't follow the economic side of games. However, I find it difficult to understand why you are so upset with Blizzard for "getting into bed with these guys". Have we seen massive amounts of micro transactions integrated into Starcraft signifying that Blizzard wants to milk us for our money? Was HotS not priced as an expansion as promised? If quality is your concern, is HoTS not a massive improvement upon WoL? Do they not spend a lot of time and resources to supplement the game with WCS, balance, community updates, etc.? Although I can't always agree with the way Blizzard chooses to do things, I don't really feel like they ever cut quality at our end to try to make a quick buck.
On May 01 2013 07:00 Krohm wrote: " I don't really feel like they ever cut quality at our end to try to make a quick buck."
Well my friend, perhaps you should give Diablo III a go.
I guess the only product I have experienced was Starcraft. In that case it seemed pretty good. Also I'm not saying Diablo wasn't bad (I wouldn't know), but is it because they failed to delivery something with quality or are people upset with things that they don't agree with that probably wasn't directly related to making a quick buck? I have to ask because the gaming community tends to be unbelievably entitled in general.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
You have chosen wisely, my son. Arguing with Hider is a fools errand. He will demand you lay out your points in a logical fashion, empirical fashion, so he can then cherry pick which to argue against. You are best not engage and move along.
Your welcome to criticise me for demanding logical arguments. And of course don't waste time discussing things I agree with (that would be a waste time), so your right, I will cherry pick things that I disagree with, or where I can't follow his logic.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
You gave yourself away when you stated:
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote: Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote: [quote]
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote: Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic?
Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock.
But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you.
Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
You gave yourself away when you stated:
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote: Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic?
Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have little weight on the value of the stock.
But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors?
Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Standard Hider. Enters a thread and challenges someones statement, providing no evidence of this own.
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?
Then when someone answer him, he demands that the person explain their argument in a format he prefers. He also demands that logic be used. Without even backing up his point in any way, he requires that someone detail provide evidence to back up their initial claim, shift the burden to make an argument away from him and back on the other party.
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?
Why provide your own evidence or add to the discussion on your own? Its way better to just demand that people enumerate their logic for you in a format that you prefer. Then you can just sit back and pick at the points you want to discuss an ignore the rest. Internet debate at its finest.
PS: If you haven't noticed, I've seen this pattern before. Though never so neatly laid out in this fashion.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
Standard Hider. Enters a thread and challenges someones statement, providing no evidence of this own.
Do you follow the Amazon logic? I explained it briefly in a previous post. I don't think it neccesarily proof he is wrong as it depends on his arguments/definitions (which I why I want him to define them).
Then when someone answer him, he demands that the person explain their argument in a format he prefers. He also demands that logic be used. Without even backing up his point in any way, he requires that someone detail provide evidence to back up their initial claim, shift the burden to make an argument away from him and back on the other party.
Did you see his reponse? He didn't respond to me, but repeated the same thing. He never asked me anything, so I am not sure what you demand of me? If I ignored his response and still demanded that he answered my questions, sure, you would have a point. But what is it exactly you think I should do differently here (given that I want a structured debate)
Do you think I am not allowed to him ask questions in order for me to understand his thought proces, so I can better discuss him?
Internet debate at its finest.
I think Internet debates at its worst arises when people haven't clarified their definitions and doesn't properly understand each others arguments. I am trying to avoid that from happening.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
You gave yourself away when you stated:
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote: Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic?
Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock.
But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you.
You're arguing as if you believe any growth value is long-term profit only. However, growth exists over the short term as well. In fact, the Amazon example supports my case: the share price tumbled because the company's own projected growth for the current quarter is lower than expected. This is a substantial decrease in share price due simply to a projected short-term decrease in growth.
The implication of my original claim, as related to the discussion including sluggaslamoo that preceded it, is that even if Kotick's decisions benefit Activision over the short-term rather than the long-term, this is still something that shareholders might legitimately see fit to reward him for. This does not imply that ATVI has increased in value due to short-term investors, it means that the short-term gains optimized by Kotick's business strategy is something that shareholders often applaud.
On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote: Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Your posts in this discussion, as well as your posting history, all seem to indicate that you are not arguing in good faith.
I've given basic explanations of my limited claim (that investors are often interested in short-term profit) and the arguments behind them, but I am not interested in writing a textbook on how the market determines share prices while you sit back and throw leading questions hoping that I'll make a misstep.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
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?
You're wasting time here with this derail.
Due to poor reading comprehension, you're arguing under the impression that I think short-term profit is the only component of share prices. This is a strawman, as I've made no such argument.
That is why I am asking questions. I have not put up an argument yet. If you read the post I don't even claim you say a single thing actually.
You gave yourself away when you stated:
On April 30 2013 22:20 Hider wrote: Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Emphasis mine. This is either a deliberate strawman or a reading comprehension failure on your part.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that as it has no relevant to my two prior posts.Why not answer the questions and continue the debate, and give me a chance to better understand your logic?
Anyway it definitely wasn't a strawman, because if you look at Amazons current earnings it is ridicilously low compared to share price, which implies that there is no way the majority of the share price is based on short-term profit. A strawman implies that I am misrepresenting your views, but in this case your view would imply (as I understand it, but I am not really sure I do, that is why I ask the questions) that long-term earnings have a relatively small importance on the value of the stock.
But the thing is; I honestly do not fully understand what you are implying. Are you just implying that the dayily volatility we are seeing in stock prices is caused by short-term investors. Given the context (ATVIs share price) that would imply that ATVI primarily has increased in value (and thus increased the salary of ATVIS CEO) due to short-term oriented investors? If you think I am misrepresenting your view, please answer the questions I asked you.
You're arguing as if you believe any growth value is long-term profit only. However, growth exists over the short term as well. In fact, the Amazon example supports my case: the share price tumbled because the company's own projected growth for the current quarter is lower than expected. This is a substantial decrease in share price due simply to a projected short-term decrease in growth.
The implication of my original claim, as related to the discussion including sluggaslamoo that preceded it, is that even if Kotick's decisions benefit Activision over the short-term rather than the long-term, this is still something that shareholders might legitimately see fit to reward him for. This does not imply that ATVI has increased in value due to short-term investors, it means that the short-term gains optimized by Kotick's business strategy is something that shareholders often applaud.
On May 01 2013 08:42 Hider wrote: Again, there is no reason to be offensive, as I am just trying to understand your position. If you don't have any intention of putting up arguments behind your claim, then say so.
Your posts in this discussion, as well as your posting history, all seem to indicate that you are not arguing in good faith.
I've given basic explanations of my limited claim (that investors are often interested in short-term profit) and the arguments behind them, but I am not interested in writing a textbook on how the market determines share prices while you sit back and throw leading questions hoping that I'll make a misstep.
I dont understand what you are talking about with good faith? Do you imply I have some other intentions beside trying to understand your thought proces so I could discuss you (because I do disagree, I don't think this short-term profit is relevant at all. I think the long-term value of ATVI has increased and long-term investors are rewarding the CEO). But okay, I accept that you won't go into a further discussion, so lets just leave it here (but please answer the good-faith question, because I don't see in which way I could have any other intentions besides disagreeing with you).
EDIT; Just my last comments regarding Amazon; Investors/analysts often extrapolate growth rates. So if the growth in the current quarter declines by x%, then the future growth rate is more likely to decline as well (this is typically how they model things). Thus the growth rate of the last quarter, while not particularly relevant in it self, is used as a predictor of the future (longer term) growth rate.
EDIT EDIT: I think Acitivision probably has a better long-term busienss model than Blizzard. Blizzard relies so much on developing extremely good games for 2-4 franchies, and thus they are extremely dependant on having quality human ressources. With the release of D3 (and too some extent Sc2 which IMO is suboptimal in a lot of ways), I feel that this is prooving to be too much of a liability (as the Diablo-franchise has little left in terms of future profit).
Activision are better at monetizing and branding their games rather than Blizzard (their branding is primarily due quality games, while Acitvisions branding has come due to a better understanding of the behaviour of consumers and advertising). So Activision are showing that they are not just relying on their lower levelled employees to produce quality games, but have developed shareholder (read; long-term value) throgh their executives. As long as Activision can use their knowledge of branding and moneitizing then they will be capable of generating returns to their shareholders 10+ years from now on. Blizzard on the other hand relies heavily on Titan to be a succes as WoW subscribers are declining, which IMO is quite a a gamble.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
Exactly this. Why are we not hearing about stock options for the other workers? This man is not solely responsible for all that profit. Even if he was the decision-maker, there are a whole lot of marines, SCVs, hydras, drones, probes, and zealots that go into make this stuff happen. (See what I did there?)
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
That's the problem of the really free maket system. I don't blame big CEOs and such for abusing the system, it's said system that needs changes to become fairer. Otherwise it just becomes a game of supply and demand, and at some point it becomes abusive to many people.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust.
No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise?
If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary?
What does "necessity" have anything to do with it?
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
Exactly this. Why are we not hearing about stock options for the other workers? This man is not solely responsible for all that profit. Even if he was the decision-maker, there are a whole lot of marines, SCVs, hydras, drones, probes, and zealots that go into make this stuff happen. (See what I did there?)
It doesn't make sense with stock options for workers lower in the hierarchy for two reasons; 1) More risk-averse, which means they have lower utility and needs to be compensated with higher average wages which redues shareholder value. 2) Less impact on value of the company.
Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
Too much? I disagree that there is such a thing as "too much" as long as there has been proper corporate governance (if the board for instance is independant and is qualified in the skill of optimizing exectuvie salaries).
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.
Whether his decisions are acceptable or not as consumers is not really his concern. The ceo's responsibilities lie to the stockholders, not the consumers, and he certainly has made the company and its stockholders more money, and by extension himself since he is awarded that same stock he is helping make valuable. While I as a gamer would prefer if companies cared more about those consumers and the long term, realistically I have to look at how it actually works, and not how I want it to be, and realize that all I can do as an individual consumer is not buy their games and not add more value to the stock by a miniscule amount through my lack of support. It sucks to be an individual voice that matters proportionally so little, but railing against a working system as an individual would be little more than delusions of grandeur; "in [internet forums], no one can hear [us] scream".
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust.
No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise?
If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means.
So educate me. I'm not really here to talk about economics, I guess. I find it unethical. I don't even think movie stars should get paid as much as they do. There's a definite imbalance in the distribution of resources all around the world, and stuff needs to get redistributed.
I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
If someone is (significantly) underpaid, wouldn't other firms be willing to hire him for a higher wage (assuming he is very valuable for the firm)?
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust.
No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise?
If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary?
What does "necessity" have anything to do with it?
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote: Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means.
So educate me. I'm not really here to talk about economics, I guess. I find it unethical.
What exactly do you find unethical? What ethical principle is being violated, exactly?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:I don't even think movie stars should get paid as much as they do.
Why not?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:There's a definite imbalance in the distribution of resources all around the world, and stuff needs to get redistributed.
Why does "stuff need to get redistributed"?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote: I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
If you truly are undervalued, you can ask for a pay raise or find another job where they will pay you appropriately. If you cannot do so, then you are not actually undervalued.
"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies.
Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million."
How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine?
It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys.
Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work
It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something?
People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid.
The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work.
Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
Maybe.
Boards and shareholders didn't decide to pay executives more, and more via stock options for no reason. There are lots of reasons why the change occurred, but one of the core issues is that shareholders didn't think executives were acting in their best interest. Stock options were seen as a way to get shareholders and management on the same page. It was somewhat effective.
He makes this money, because the company is willing to do it. If it was too much for what he does, he wouldn't get paid as much.
He is obviously creating enough value for the share/stockholders to be able to recieve this much compensation. it's really basic economy..
It's not like Kotick decides to get paid this much, it's the people who are paying him. The only power Kotick has is the power of negotiation.
Besides, it's mostly shares. So yeah, if he is able to increase the value of his own shares as well, he is obviously making more money. And like the post above me explains, the payment of shares is to reduce agency costs. By giving shares to the CEO, the CEO will for his own benefit increase the value of the shares, which is in line with what the other shareholders want, thus reducing the differences between the 2 parties.
Rawr rawr pitchforks. Yeah, I know. I'm getting a bit overidealistic. It's just 60 million dollars, even in stock options for a guy that's kind of reviled in the gaming community.
Anyways, these are my true colors. I'm a socialist goddammit.
And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by. You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else. It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
Then again, I'm a privileged, liberal living in NYC. What do I know?
Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by.
That's not an ethical principle. You still haven't explained what ethical principle is being violated.
Why is that wrong? What did Kotick do, to merit the term "fat pig"? Because it sounds like to me you just hate him because he's wealthy and successful, while you played video games instead of going to college.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else.
You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
You're making unsubstantiated arguments. "Not actually looking with both eyes open" is not a logical argument. If you think that it is "unfair" or "immoral" that some people are paid more than others, please explain why this is the case, and what ethical principles this is violating.
Also, you're doing the blaming thing again. Certain people are paid more because their work has more value, and that means they're "getting away with it" to you?
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: Then again, I'm a privileged, liberal living in NYC. What do I know?
Privilege is simply a Marxist form of ad hominem. Don't worry about it.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
The problem is that you throw around a lot of words without seeming to know what they mean. "Ethics", for example. "Ethics" implies a set of coherent ethical principles, whereas you seem to simply be pointing at things you personally don't like and declaring them "unethical".
Activision/Blizzard does $4 billion in revenues with just 7,000 employees and has 30% profit margins.
And people complain he gets the equivalent of a 3rd tier NFL quarterback ~ Tony Romo type money? (yes I know in stock options not cash, and he is already worth like $2 billion).
NASCAR does around $4 billion in revenue. NBA does around $4 billion in revenue. The Premiere League does just under $4 billion.
I don't see the problem. He probably delayed his compensation until this year so his ex wife couldn't get it in their divorce.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by.
That's not an ethical principle. You still haven't explained what ethical principle is being violated.
Why is that wrong? What did Kotick do, to merit the term "fat pig"? Because it sounds like to me you just hate him because he's wealthy and successful, while you played video games instead of going to college.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else.
You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
You're making unsubstantiated arguments. "Not actually looking with both eyes open" is not a logical argument. If you think that it is "unfair" or "immoral" that some people are paid more than others, please explain why this is the case, and what ethical principles this is violating.
Also, you're doing the blaming thing again. Certain people are paid more because their work has more value, and that means they're "getting away with it" to you?
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
The problem is that you throw around a lot of words without seeming to know what they mean. "Ethics", for example. "Ethics" implies a set of coherent ethical principles, whereas you seem to simply be pointing at things you personally don't like and declaring them "unethical".
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash. I, however, don't blame Kotick, C. Ronaldo, Paris Hilton, or whatever other insanely rich person you could think of. I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor. I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
1. Bobby Kotick "won" his money? Did the Activision board hold a raffle to be CEO? 2. Could these people, being hard-working that they are, be the CEO of Activision as successfully as Bobby Kotick has?
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash.
Why is that amount of money "obscene" for a person to make? Bobby Kotick is captain of the ship when the ship is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue. And is the only major video gaming company on the content end to see it's stock go up since the 2008 crash.
Most of the time on a ship, the captain stays not quite in the background but also not (usually) dominating the bridge. Until there's a storm. Look at how beat up all those other ships are. SS Activision has weathered it well. Should Activision not make enough money to pay Bobby Kotick that much money?
I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor.
Blame modern agriculture and medicine, it isn't capitalism's fault that there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people alive and capable of buying a computer or console and some games. Oh wait yes that state of prosperity actually is capitalism's fault.
I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
Try some real capitalism there then. Redistribution of wealth succeeds at lifting the lowest out of squalor but past that it's pretty worthless.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else.
You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
I think the problem with the current system that everyone is alluding to, is the fact that the supposedly "Free market" is not really "Free" in the truest sense and people with more money are able to "rig" the system in order to keep tipping scales in their own favor. Now this is a separate topic on it s own and probably doesn't merit a discussion here, but I would suspect that that is the root cause of frustration that is being vented.
I mean I guess, but why this year? Did he really increase the value of the company 8xs over and in particular in the last couple years?
The main thing is that guys like Bobby don't make it likely to get the sort of games with the sort of features I like. On the contrary, whenever he opens his mouth I get the impression that he is one of the guys that is leading videogames in the exact opposite direction I would want. It is therefore irritating to see such a guy getting an increase in compensation rather than getting turfed. Irritating because it suggests to other AAA game companies that Bobby's method is the right track which further cements my dismay at his direction.
I get the "if he can demand, he made it, that's just capitalism." But I don't particularly care how much money he can squeeze out of the gaming market. I just care about better games.
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a meh answer. I mean this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com. B) Why does this thread have 20 pages? Oh, I see, socialism vs capitalism. Fun.
Edit: I guess the relevant line of conversation is like what the above poster said - why did he get so much this year? (which is why the watchdog is concerned) - but it is still pretty meh as a topic. I think the thread just serves as a self-affirmation for people who hate Bobby Kotick.
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote: A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so.
Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it.
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote: A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com. B) Why does this thread have 20 pages? Oh, I see, socialism vs capitalism. Fun. Back to question A again.
Apparently everyone else feels the same way since the thread basically turned into socialism vs capitalism because they had nothing better to talk about.
Yeah, you're right. This is stupid. Someone shut down this thread. There's nothing we've learned here.
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote: A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so.
Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it.
Yeah, I edited out some of the condescension; I was too heavy-handed about the way I worded my point.
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
1. Bobby Kotick "won" his money? Did the Activision board hold a raffle to be CEO? 2. Could these people, being hard-working that they are, be the CEO of Activision as successfully as Bobby Kotick has?
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash.
Why is that amount of money "obscene" for a person to make? Bobby Kotick is captain of the ship when the ship is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue. And is the only major video gaming company on the content end to see it's stock go up since the 2008 crash.
Most of the time on a ship, the captain stays not quite in the background but also not (usually) dominating the bridge. Until there's a storm. Look at how beat up all those other ships are. SS Activision has weathered it well. Should Activision not make enough money to pay Bobby Kotick that much money?
I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor.
Blame modern agriculture and medicine, it isn't capitalism's fault that there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people alive and capable of buying a computer or console and some games. Oh wait yes that state of prosperity actually is capitalism's fault.
I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
Try some real capitalism there then. Redistribution of wealth succeeds at lifting the lowest out of squalor but past that it's pretty worthless.
I think that amount of money is "obscene" because there are no earthly needs that require such absurd amounts of cash (for an individual/family). You can live a life of luxuries with a fraction of that, It's just an opinion though, there is no objectivity here.
Regarding the "blame". I blame capitalism for forcing medicine to be commercialized to the point in which it is right now, which makes it unfair. Access to state of the art medicine should be a right, and not something you access according to your economical power. People shouldn't die waiting for procedures, diagnoses, or medication because they're poor. People shouldn't suffer more from X disease because of their lack of wealth. Medicine has become a commodity, that just shouldn't happen.
Same with education. Quality education should be a given for everyone, no matter your wealth.
I don't care if some people get better cars, better clothes, fancier homes, jewelry, whatever. But there are some things that are basic needs and shouldn't be subject to brutal market treatment, it just makes people's life unfairly worse.
Like I said, I don't blame or hate Kotick for being rich, he's just done well under this system's rules.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by.
That's not an ethical principle. You still haven't explained what ethical principle is being violated.
Why is that wrong? What did Kotick do, to merit the term "fat pig"? Because it sounds like to me you just hate him because he's wealthy and successful, while you played video games instead of going to college.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else.
You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
You're making unsubstantiated arguments. "Not actually looking with both eyes open" is not a logical argument. If you think that it is "unfair" or "immoral" that some people are paid more than others, please explain why this is the case, and what ethical principles this is violating.
Also, you're doing the blaming thing again. Certain people are paid more because their work has more value, and that means they're "getting away with it" to you?
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote: Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
The problem is that you throw around a lot of words without seeming to know what they mean. "Ethics", for example. "Ethics" implies a set of coherent ethical principles, whereas you seem to simply be pointing at things you personally don't like and declaring them "unethical".
Ok, well let me start by saying that I'm a moral realist. I think ethics and morals are subjective. So coherent won't necessarily mean objective. So already we have a contradiction because if ethics are supposed to guide groups or even individuals, the implication is that there's some universality, right?
So to answer the first question: the ethical principle is that there is an unmerited and unjustified distribution of a certain resource, in this case, stock, which translates into money. It's a posession. It's one man having a shit ton on of haves while others basically struggle.
Maybe I was overstating the case. Maybe I was resorting to personal attacks. But it's only because when I feel there has been injustice, it inflames me in a visceral, subjective way. It's moral repugnance.
Now, maybe I am putting the onus on the wealthy. What I'm aiming at isn't so much the people but the circumstances. But can we just let them off the hook? I like to give people more credit than that. People do shitty things knowingly. We have the capability to be compassionate, giving, fair, etc or we hoard, act in self-interest, with greed. Either extreme is dangerous. Imagine if Kotick just gave with open hands everything he had, not holding onto anything for himself, compassionate without boundaries. He depletes himself. No sustenance, no reserves to take care of himself.
In the opposite extreme, he takes advantage of every situation he can through cunning, good business sense, but then doesn't stop. Okay, the board of stock holders gives him that much more control of the company through those stocks, which will pay him out that much more.
But why is no one else being recognized? Sure, the 99.9% of employees working for Activision probably aren't capable of making shrewd business decisions, but what's left? Maybe a lot. Maybe there's plenty to go around. I probably should do more research.
My ethics, though, tell me that that much money could go a long way to taking care of your employees that not only will help them individually, but also boost the morale and show that the company invests in them. The employees (theoretically) do the same in turn.
Anyways, I'm kind of done with this thread because as the last guy said, it's starting to turn to bullshit. I could go on longer, and sorry that my arguments weren't cohesive enough. But when my sense of injustice gets inflamed, reason has no part to play in this. I'm out for blood. And the wealthy are an easy target to be certain, perhaps too easy.
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote: A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so.
Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it.
Yeah, I edited out some of the condescension; I was too heavy-handed about the way I worded my point.
No, you were right. This derailed. It stopped being about Activision and Kotick and more about people's ideals. There's nothing to be learned here. The human race is destined to shit on each other regardless of whether Kotick's bonus harms the employees or not.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: Ok, well let me start by saying that I'm a moral realist. I think ethics and morals are subjective. So coherent won't necessarily mean objective. So already we have a contradiction because if ethics are supposed to guide groups or even individuals, the implication is that there's some universality, right?
Not necessarily. A group can agree to being guided by a shared ethical system even if those ethics aren't universal. For example, vegetarians can refrain from eating meat without thinking that this is universally correct for everyone.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: So to answer the first question: the ethical principle is that there is an unmerited and unjustified distribution of a certain resource, in this case, stock, which translates into money. It's a posession. It's one man having a shit ton on of haves while others basically struggle.
Why is it unmerited or unjustified? Who are you to say that what a company chooses to pay it's employee is unjustified?
In your ideal world, do you deny others the right to agree to certain amounts of pay? What would make a just world to you, one in which a mob forcibly takes money away from people who earn more to give to people who earn less?
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: Maybe I was overstating the case. Maybe I was resorting to personal attacks. But it's only because when I feel there has been injustice, it inflames me in a visceral, subjective way. It's moral repugnance.
No, what you're feeling is merely an emotional reaction (jealousy) to something you don't like. And considering that after high school you played video games, while Kotick started working with Steve Jobs in college, I think it's apparent where your emotional reaction comes from.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: Now, maybe I am putting the onus on the wealthy. What I'm aiming at isn't so much the people but the circumstances. But can we just let them off the hook? I like to give people more credit than that. People do shitty things knowingly. We have the capability to be compassionate, giving, fair, etc or we hoard, act in self-interest, with greed. Either extreme is dangerous. Imagine if Kotick just gave with open hands everything he had, not holding onto anything for himself, compassionate without boundaries. He depletes himself. No sustenance, no reserves to take care of himself.
You're still putting wealthy people "on the hook" without explaining what it is you think they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: In the opposite extreme, he takes advantage of every situation he can through cunning, good business sense, but then doesn't stop. Okay, the board of stock holders gives him that much more control of the company through those stocks, which will pay him out that much more.
You still haven't explained what exactly he did wrong.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: But why is no one else being recognized? Sure, the 99.9% of employees working for Activision probably aren't capable of making shrewd business decisions, but what's left? Maybe a lot. Maybe there's plenty to go around. I probably should do more research.
It doesn't matter. You get paid what you agree to get paid. If your services are valuable enough that you can demand a share of the pie, then you'll get it. If not, then you'll get whatever salary you agreed to.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote: My ethics, though, tell me that that much money could go a long way to taking care of your employees that not only will help them individually, but also boost the morale and show that the company invests in them. The employees (theoretically) do the same in turn.
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
1. Bobby Kotick "won" his money? Did the Activision board hold a raffle to be CEO? 2. Could these people, being hard-working that they are, be the CEO of Activision as successfully as Bobby Kotick has?
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash.
Why is that amount of money "obscene" for a person to make? Bobby Kotick is captain of the ship when the ship is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue. And is the only major video gaming company on the content end to see it's stock go up since the 2008 crash.
Most of the time on a ship, the captain stays not quite in the background but also not (usually) dominating the bridge. Until there's a storm. Look at how beat up all those other ships are. SS Activision has weathered it well. Should Activision not make enough money to pay Bobby Kotick that much money?
I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor.
Blame modern agriculture and medicine, it isn't capitalism's fault that there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people alive and capable of buying a computer or console and some games. Oh wait yes that state of prosperity actually is capitalism's fault.
I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
Try some real capitalism there then. Redistribution of wealth succeeds at lifting the lowest out of squalor but past that it's pretty worthless.
I think that amount of money is "obscene" because there are no earthly needs that require such absurd amounts of cash (for an individual/family). You can live a life of luxuries with a fraction of that, It's just an opinion though, there is no objectivity here.
Regarding the "blame". I blame capitalism for forcing medicine to be commercialized to the point in which it is right now, which makes it unfair. Access to state of the art medicine should be a right, and not something you access according to your economical power. People shouldn't die waiting for procedures, diagnoses, or medication because they're poor. People shouldn't suffer more from X disease because of their lack of wealth. Medicine has become a commodity, that just shouldn't happen.
Same with education. Quality education should be a given for everyone, no matter your wealth.
I don't care if some people get better cars, better clothes, fancier homes, jewelry, whatever. But there are some things that are basic needs and shouldn't be subject to brutal market treatment, it just makes people's life unfairly worse.
Like I said, I don't blame or hate Kotick for being rich, he's just done well under this system's rules.
I think education is always a really good point to bring up.
Imagine if America treated Education the same way it did with things like Healthcare. Most people wouldn't even be able to write. Many of the arguments used today against taxing, and free healthcare, are rehashed arguments of what people used against free education. If you think the arguments against free education are absurd, that's what the arguments against many other socialist principles (free education is socialist) sound like to us.
The main problem I see is that about 90% of the population actually pay too much tax, while the top 1% hardly pay anything at all in comparison. Unfortunately politicians aren't prepared to protect their asses from billionaires even though they would have the majority of the population on their side.
For the top 10% of wage earners, they probably worked hard for it, but the top 1%? A lot of that was due to luck. Do you think it takes skill to be the son of the owner of a massive oil company? Microsoft would still be a tiny company if it wasn't for IBM. Yes Bill Gates did work really hard, but luck was still the main factor for his massive earnings. For many software developers who became rich, it wasn't skill or effort, its almost pure luck. For every rich software developer, there are poor ones who have worked much harder and are still rolling the dice with each new project, waiting for a big company to sponsor them with huge amounts of money.
Regardless of whether Bobby Kotick made good decisions, without developers there would be no games. Currently many game company employees are living very tough lives, financially and physically.
If you want my opinion, the result of Blizzard has nothing to do with how good Kotick's decisions were, it was how ruthless they were. Sever a few arms out of your company and re-neg on promised bonuses, and in the next 3 years you are going to make a ton of profit. I mean running a game studio costs a shit ton of money, each time you fire a whole studio that's millions in savings.
Other companies were just not prepared to do that, that's it.
Oh yeah and I think people need a reminder that before Kotick ran Activision, he ran 4Kids entertainment. Its not a coincidence that both these companies have terrible reputations.
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.
Very interesting.
I've always thought this was one of those "it's messed up but it's just how it is". Nice to see otherwise.
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
Where I come from, such clause would be illegal and hence void.
wow. i really didnt't know the american kids were such blind fanatical fundamentalists when it comes to their capitalism. i am, as always, astonished that anyone in their right minds can't see that surplus is generated by people NOT receiving the fruits of their labour (americans like using the phrase "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow" as if it would give support to this kind of purely evil thieving capitalism, when getting the sweat of your brow is the opposite of that), and thus that all bosses are stealing the fruits of the lower workers labour. but to aggressively defend someone like kotick.. it's perverse. i understand it if you are in his position and then you are my, and everyone elses, mortal enemy. but for common people to defend this atrocious evil? why?
No one deserves to earn more than 10 times the amount the lowest paid earns.
Call me a communist all you like, but there is no way talent, motivation and hard work can explain millions of dollars earned compared to 30.000 dollars earned on a yearly basis.
On May 10 2013 21:32 CYFAWS wrote: wow. i really didnt't know the american kids were such blind fanatical fundamentalists when it comes to their capitalism. i am, as always, astonished that anyone in their right minds can't see that surplus is generated by people NOT receiving the fruits of their labour (americans like using the phrase "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow" as if it would give support to this kind of purely evil thieving capitalism, when getting the sweat of your brow is the opposite of that), and thus that all bosses are stealing the fruits of the lower workers labour. but to aggressively defend someone like kotick.. it's perverse. i understand it if you are in his position and then you are my, and everyone elses, mortal enemy. but for common people to defend this atrocious evil? why?
As I've said in other posts, there is actual rational thought behind CEO pay in the US.
You'd do better to understand the issues at hand rather than simply spouting out your own personal politics/morality.
On May 10 2013 21:41 Callynn wrote: No one deserves to earn more than 10 times the amount the lowest paid earns.
Call me a communist all you like, but there is no way talent, motivation and hard work can explain millions of dollars earned compared to 30.000 dollars earned on a yearly basis.
Anyone who tries to argue this is going to get nowhere, because effort isn't exactly quantifiable.
Capitalism isn't based on what people deserve. Those millions of dollars (or even billions) are simply the result of the decisions they made in a capitalist market. The whole point is to encourage people with innovative ideas to follow through, because there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
On May 10 2013 21:32 CYFAWS wrote: wow. i really didnt't know the american kids were such blind fanatical fundamentalists when it comes to their capitalism. i am, as always, astonished that anyone in their right minds can't see that surplus is generated by people NOT receiving the fruits of their labour (americans like using the phrase "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow" as if it would give support to this kind of purely evil thieving capitalism, when getting the sweat of your brow is the opposite of that), and thus that all bosses are stealing the fruits of the lower workers labour. but to aggressively defend someone like kotick.. it's perverse. i understand it if you are in his position and then you are my, and everyone elses, mortal enemy. but for common people to defend this atrocious evil? why?
As I've said in other posts, there is actual rational thought behind CEO pay in the US.
You'd do better to understand the issues at hand rather than simply spouting out your own personal politics/morality.
You seem to understand these issues at hand better than anybody else, please elaborate.
On May 10 2013 21:41 Callynn wrote: No one deserves to earn more than 10 times the amount the lowest paid earns.
Call me a communist all you like, but there is no way talent, motivation and hard work can explain millions of dollars earned compared to 30.000 dollars earned on a yearly basis.
Anyone who tries to argue this is going to get nowhere, because effort isn't exactly quantifiable.
Capitalism isn't based on what people deserve. Those millions of dollars (or even billions) are simply the result of the decisions they made in a capitalist market. The whole point is to encourage people with innovative ideas to follow through, because there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Yes. Firing entire studios and abolishing all creativity from your company to reduce risk must be very innovative.
Capitalism is flawed. No first world country runs entirely on capitalism, if it did, you wouldn't be typing on your computer, you'd be spending 12 hours a day sweeping chimneys for $1 an hour regardless of your abilities because your parents wouldn't be able to afford your education.
Since corporations have become more powerful than governments, they now have the final word in politics. Our society is moving backwards. The reason its unfair for CEO's to get what they earn is because who paid for their upbringing to get them there in the first place? it was our taxes.
Now that they have reaped the rewards from our taxes, they shouldn't be hoarding all the money themselves, they should be giving back to the community so more like-minded individuals have an equal opportunity to be successful.
Unfortunately the more money these fat cats hoard, the harder it becomes for like-minded young individuals to become successful. Its completely selfish.
For example, every year there's a bigger percentage of money out of the pool that technical schools can use to spend on buying new facilities for aspiring game developers. 20% of entire nations funds is just sitting in some peoples wallets doing nothing and this is increasing. Corporations are making sure that each generation is fucking over the next with its short term thinking. So we end up with a vicious cycle of shittier and more expensive games as it becomes harder to gain the necessary skills to make them.
Wanna hear some irony? Many aspiring 3d modellers have to pirate the authoring tools just so they could teach themselves how to use it, because their schools can't afford it, or they can't afford the schooling. Their access to a free full version allows them to get a huge headstart on others who have to wait till they get a fulltime job in order to afford such a thing. Game companies then hire these young guns to work for them, and then complain about people pirating their games and want to abolish piracy. Without piracy, these companies wouldn't have been able to make the high standard of games in the first place.
Capitalism, it only makes sense with narrow minded thinking. The socialist butterfly effect works in the background while capitalism takes all the credit. Nothing in capitalism would work without the socialist principles propping it up, i.e free education paid with taxes.
EPT
He is doing everything right. I hate the CoD products myself and its a money machine, but its us the consumers who are at a blame. If the Call of Duty series would sell poorly they would try another direction with the games.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AWTsYub.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpZXaN.png)
