|
On February 08 2019 05:09 Godwrath wrote:
I disagree with you, but to be honest, i wasn't trying to start a discussion, just to state where you are at. But since you stated your opinion i would like to know if this is exclusive to games:
Is Avatar the best movie of all times ? Star wars Force awakens also objectively one of the best movies ever done ?
Harry Potter or the Lord of the rings some of the best books ?
its all about long term engagement. Let's take 2 movies from 1982. Blade Runner and The Sword and the Sorcerer. The Sword and The Sorcerer brought in more money in 1982. Does this mean its better? How much consumer engagement occurred for each movie since 1982? Blade Runner experienced a lot more long term engagement by consumers.
Applying this to music. Let's take Led Zeppelin and the Bee Gees. Both sold lots of albums in the 70s. During FM radio broadcasting's boom of the the 1970s entire FM radio stations used Zeppelin's music as the foundation of their superior broadcast technology. For example , Toronto's CILQ-107 built its listener base on Led Zeppelin. No FM station used the Bee Gees to build their brand strength. AM stations sure did play the Bee Gees though.
Which band has had more long term engagement over the last 5 decades? 50 years on... how much does a record label charge for the license of any Led Zeppelin song. How about the Bee Gees? Its Led Zeppelin all the way.
https://vimeo.com/73679678
+ Show Spoiler +
Who is a better drummer: Led Zeppelin's John Bonham or the Bee Gees Colin Petersen? Try and find some info on the various techniques Petersen employed as a drummer... do the same for Bonham. Who has attracted more long term engagement from both music listeners and drummers. Several decades after Bonham's death ...who is more influential to 21st century drummers... Bonham or Petersen? Its John Bonham by a wide margin.
+ Show Spoiler +
"Hit The Ice" came out on consoles about the same time as EA's NHL '94. How has the engagement been for these games over the past 26 years? Based on the answer to that question I'd say EA NHL '94 is better than "Hit The Ice" by a huge margin. 25+ years later and competitive EA NHL '94 leagues continue to roll along. How many other 1993 games have any kind of large scale consumer engagement? Not many.
http://www.nhl94online.com/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/nhl-94-tournament-1.4881134
Zeppelin > Bee Gees ; Bonham > Petersen ; EA NHL '94 > Hit The Ice ... due to long term consumer engagement.
EA NHL '94 is a great game.
|
On February 09 2019 00:44 Manit0u wrote:
What you fail to mention though, is that you can have completely different take on player retention.
EA is pushing new versions of the same garbage year after year. They're supposed to be those mega franchises that bring in a lot of money to it. Now take a look at GTA V, which is a 5 year old game that sold more copies in 2018 than anything from EA apart from Madden. If you have a good quality product it can remain relevant for years. Everything that EA is putting out has a lifetime of 1 year. That's not how you build good consumer base, you have big turnout rate and low loyalty, which puts pressure on the company to push those releases year after year or they'll lose most of their consumers. If you release a good product that's viable for many years and has good replay value you build a loyal fan base, which can wait a couple of years for your new product, giving you more time and leeway.
That's how I see it.
The most important question there is monetization model. GTA model drives a lot of revenue after the sale. Most EA titles drive their revenue at the sale with a lot of pushback for their tries at getting money after the sale. If the importance is on the sale quick releases with good sales is the goal. If money after release is the goal player retention matters a lot more.
|
It is interesting how EA chose to market Respawn's latest game. No advanced marketing at all. Just release the game and pay streamers/influencers to play it. Quite a change from EA's traditional marketing and promotional methods.
After the main stream media proclaims the sky is falling for EA due to a somewhat weak earnings report that still resulted in higher profits and revenues than last year... 2 days later.. the sky is no longer falling and EA stock is at $95 and higher than it was before the earnings report.
What happened to this "historic decline" in EA stock? what a joke. talk about superficial, poor news coverage.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oqrKmiK.jpg)
|
|
|
They also gave their CFO a 15 million dollar bonus recently. It is almost like the lay offs are because the company can’t hand out 15 million dollar bonuses, keep share holders pumped about growth and pay their workers. So all the talent that people spent years cultivating gets thrown away because the CFO needs his pay day.
|
Funnily enough the justification for giving these massive bonuses whilst laying off jobs is rewarding the saving of money done by laying off jobs.
|
Yeah, I saw that. I wanted to call the dude up and be like “You said the quite part out loud, my guy.” The only plus side is that it was so nakedly mercenary that folks pushing to unionize can point right at it and say “look at that shit. It doesn’t matter how well you do, they will can you just to pay themselves bonuses.”
|
It's laying off people who already broke over six figures, that can easily be replaced by a college grad with little experience, and willing to be paid between 40k - 75k. It's the usual game all these major fortune 500 companies play.
|
On February 12 2019 00:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:
It's laying off people who already broke over six figures, that can easily be replaced by a college grad with little experience, and willing to be paid between 40k - 75k. It's the usual game all these major fortune 500 companies play.
That person isn't likely to have a family either. Easier to squeeze for unpaid overtime.
|
On February 12 2019 01:09 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 00:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:
It's laying off people who already broke over six figures, that can easily be replaced by a college grad with little experience, and willing to be paid between 40k - 75k. It's the usual game all these major fortune 500 companies play. That person isn't likely to have a family either. Easier to squeeze for unpaid overtime.
Gotta get those employees with "Passion" and who want to be "Part of the development family."
|
Bobby Kotick made $30 million last year.
Its a company with over 7 billion in revenue and billions in profit. Any company that big will always have financial people directing the over all course of the org that make 10s of millions of dollars per year.
Any software maker with any kind of life experience knows that project managers, business analysts, and financial guys will take a significant portion of the revenue for their work.
I'm a 1 man show... i make database software, report writer add-on tools, and a vector icon building tool. A substantial portion of the revenue from the software I make goes to the publishers of my work. I'm not complaining. This is standard business practice. It is what I have to do to get my work out there and in front of the CIOs, Business Analysts, and CAs of giant Medical Admin Orgs that pay big money for my work.
this is standard stuff here guys. ATVI is no different from any company that makes 7+ billion a year.
I think Bobby Kotick has done a great job with ATVI and before that with Activision since 1991. The guy is a genius.
|
I work for a lot of multi-billion dollar companies. Most of them treat their “vendors” like shit and their employs just as bad. They justify it is saying that “we can always find someone else.” But the problem is that over time the firms got wise and realized we were all in race to the bottom fighting over work for shitty companies.
All companies of that size are shit and will abuse their employees for profit if they can. Activision is just part of a larger problem that more and more people are starting to notice that "normal business" just means they get fucked while the CEO gets a bonus. The only smart thing for labor to do is not let them.
|
On February 11 2019 23:42 Plansix wrote: So all the talent that people spent years cultivating gets thrown away because the CFO needs his pay day.
the narrative is ...if you're directly involved in making games you won't be cut from Blizzard.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-10-activision-blizzard-reportedly-laying-off-hundreds-of-staff
Look for the Blizzard guys policing social media for bad words to get cut. They are not involved in game making. More seriously, the story is its sales and marketing getting cut. Also, the support staff used for Destiny are getting cut because that is being taken over by Bungie. Bungie is leaving ATVI.
On February 11 2019 23:42 Plansix wrote: So all the talent that people spent years cultivating gets thrown away because the CFO needs his pay day.
ATVI already had a bunch of top people leave ... probably to better paying situations...news about those guys leaving is earlier in the thread.
You are not going to get a talented, experienced person to be an important part of guiding a $7 Billion//year company for $500,000 a year.
Like i said before Kotick made $30 million last year. Given the revenue and profit of ATVI ... that pay for Kotick is about right.
|
On February 12 2019 02:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2019 23:42 Plansix wrote: So all the talent that people spent years cultivating gets thrown away because the CFO needs his pay day. the narrative is ...if you're directly involved in making games you won't be cut from Blizzard. look for the Blizzard guys policing social media for bad words to get cut. More seriously, the story is its sales and marketing getting cut. The support staff used for Destiny are getting cut because that is being taken over by Bungie. Show nested quote +On February 11 2019 23:42 Plansix wrote: So all the talent that people spent years cultivating gets thrown away because the CFO needs his pay day. ATVI already had a bunch of top people leave ... probably to better paying situations... You are not going to get a talented, experienced person to be an important part of guiding a $7 Billion//year company for $500,000 a year. Like i said before Kotick made $30 million last year. Given the revenue and profit of ATVI ... that pay for Kotick is about right.
First off, I wasn't talking about Kotick. I'm talking about Dennis Durkins.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/activision-gives-15-million-sweetener-to-new-cfo-dennis-durkin
Second: the man was paid a bonus for cutting costs by firing a whole lot of people. I don't care if they were in sales, marketing or cleaned the bathrooms. The company was successful and they still cut jobs. They paid out bonuses to their CFO and they still cut jobs. Which means if you work for Activision, the success of Activision does not assure you get to keep your job.
In the mythical world of the meritocracy, good work is supposed to translate into success and prosperity. But in the perverse world of publicly owned companies, your hard work that leads to a good product means the company can succeed, but you get to lose your job.
Literally zero reasons to buy into a system like that as anything but good for the people at the top.
|
On February 12 2019 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Second: the man was paid a bonus for cutting costs by firing a whole lot of people. I don't care if they were in sales, marketing or cleaned the bathrooms.
In my previous posts i cover this. at ATVI Revenue is UP and profit is DOWN. The most common thing to do is to lower expenses. That is what he did. He was probably given a cost cutting mandate before he took the job... but we'll never know for certain.
On February 12 2019 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Literally zero reasons to buy into a system like that as anything but good for the people at the top.
I've done just fine working with giant publicly traded companies. Some people can swim with the sharks... some people can't.
Some people don't even realize they are swimming with a shark and expect an employer//client//customer to look out for them and help them.
|
I’m old fashion. If a bunch of people are going to get laid off, the management doesn’t get bonuses. If you cannot afford to pay people their salary any longer, then the leaders don’t get bonus pay.
And this is the point: There is no reason for any employee of Activision to give a shit about the revenue vs profit justification behind the lay off. Much like Activision is all about providing returns for the stock holders, the employee is only concerned with their own income, job security and benefits. Which is why the push for unionization being taken seriously these days.
|
On February 12 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:
I’m old fashion. If a bunch of people are going to get laid off, the management doesn’t get bonuses. If you cannot afford to pay people their salary any longer, then the leaders don’t get bonus pay.
this has been going on for decades man. Megacorporationunder pays on base-pay and use incentives and bonsues to get execs to do more work.
ATVI had a 5% staff layoff a couple of years ago in the midst of record profits. If ATVI did two years ago I can't see any employee is expecting anything except what is about to happen tomorrow and the bonuses their top execs are getting.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4045791-despite-yesterdays-layoffs-activision-think-like-long-term-investor
|
On February 12 2019 03:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:
I’m old fashion. If a bunch of people are going to get laid off, the management doesn’t get bonuses. If you cannot afford to pay people their salary any longer, then the leaders don’t get bonus pay.
this has been going on for decades man. Megacorporationunder pays on base-pay and use incentives and bonsues to get execs to do more work. ATVI had a 5% staff layoff a couple of years ago in the midst of record profits. If ATVI did two years ago I can't see any employee is expecting anything except what is about to happen tomorrow and the bonuses their top execs are getting. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4045791-despite-yesterdays-layoffs-activision-think-like-long-term-investor
So the system has been kinda broken for decades or more? Maybe since the 1980s? Not really making a great case here.
|
broken? that is an arbitrary label. i'm not making any case of morality. i'm making a case of reality.
the reality of ATVI's behaviour is documented in my earlier posts. layoffs in the face of record profits in 2016. any employee should know this stuff way better than i know it.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4045791-despite-yesterdays-layoffs-activision-think-like-long-term-investor
people can choose to live in the clouds and be "shocked" by getting laid off tomorrow at ATVI if they please. However, any one who is watching carefully will not be surprised by tomorrow's events.
I deal effectively with giant publicly traded corporations. If other people can't deal with them .. that is their axe to grind... not mine. Step one would be... stop buying their stuff.
|
I’m not shocked at all. You seem to be laboring under this delusion that I am arguing the system is amoral or ethically improper. I did nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that the system is designed to benefit a select group over all others: upper management and share holders. And that is fine for them and publicly owned companies that thrive under that system.
But that same system enriches that group using the labor provided by a larger group, the rank and file employees. And I have repeatedly said that they have no reason to encourage or champion that system since it will almost never benefit them. Instead they should seek other ways to combat mass lays offs through things like collective bargaining. Because, as you have openly stated, the system is designed to enrich management over labor. So labor must seek ways maximize their profits.
And I'm not dumb enough to think that a boycott is going to have any impact on this. Consumers cannot advocate for labor with their wallets. Only labor can advocate for labor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
