Ever Wonder How Much Activision Honcho Made Last Year?


Recommended Posts

Last year, Activision had a good year. Activision boss Bobby Kotick had a very good year.

According to your-source-for-other-people's-salaries Forbes, his 2008 salary breaks down like this:

504x_kotick_salary.jpg

It must be hard to tell developers to make new Guitar Hero, Call of Duty and, now after the Blizzard merger, World of Warcraft games.

We're really not sure how Kotick manages. Letting rocker action game Brutal Legend surely cost Kotick sleepless nights. That's why they pay him the big bucks! All fourteen million plus of them.

Source: http://kotaku.com/5333604/ever-wonder-how-...-made-last-year

5 mil bonus? Now it's clear why COD MW2 is in dying need of a price hike :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did you think the boss of a billion dollar company would make? especially when its extremly successful.

$9.50 an hour.

I know he'll be making a lot, I'm not stupid. The comment is a joke my friend. However it's still an eye opener to all of those who think the MW2 price hike is money going into the devs pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, Activision moan contest for the next 3 months - **** YEAH!

Yay, people moaning contest about other people moaning about Activision for the next 3 months - **** YEAH!

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Activision as a company brought in $5 Bn last year. He must be doing something right. I would say taking .3% of that isn't entirely unfair if you're actually doing a good job.

Also, to answer the question in the title: no. :p

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Activision as a company brought in $5 Bn last year. He must be doing something right. I would say taking .3% of that isn't entirely unfair if you're actually doing a good job.

Also, to answer the question in the title: no. :p

-Spenser

I'm pretty sure that's revenue, not profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that's revenue, not profit.

I didn't say it was profit, I said they took in $5 Bn. My point still stands. He runs an extremely successful company, so he takes .3% of the revenue. I don't see the issue. Part of their revenue budget is apportioned to employee salaries, and that includes the CEO. He's not taking a particularly large portion of their revenue stream when you consider that he is doing a pretty great job at running Activision (considering it is now the highest earning publisher by revenue).

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was profit, I said they took in $5 Bn. My point still stands. He runs an extremely successful company, so he takes .3% of the revenue. I don't see the issue.

-Spenser

No it doesn't because REVENUE does not mean anything. A company could have $100Billion in revenue and still make a loss, its the profit that really matters. I.e. once you take away all of the costs of the company, how much of that $5Billion is left? You'd be very surprised. And even then, that profit can't just go into people's pockets directly, a lot of it will need to be allocated for other projects and such. Go find me some figures for how much money they actually make, THEN try to prove a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the rest of my post. Part of a revenue budget is employee salary. He's still only taking .3% of that.

You haven't actually refuted my point. My point is that he's only taking .3% of Activisions revenue for the year, and I don't see the issue with that.

Here's the story about their revenue earnings: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=734648

Turns out they also made $430M in profit last holiday alone, not to mention what they probably made the whole year. I still don't see any issues with what he's getting paid as a part of Activision's total earnings. They also don't have any debt, so all they money they take in isn't going anywhere but into Activision.

-Spenser

Edited by spenser.d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the rest of my post. Part of a revenue budget is employee salary. He's still only taking .3% of that.

You haven't actually refuted my point. My point is that he's only taking .3% of Activisions revenue for the year, and I don't see the issue with that.

Here's the story about their revenue earnings: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=734648

Turns out they also made $430M in profit last holiday alone, not to mention what they probably made the whole year. I still don't see any issues with what he's getting paid as a part of Activision's total earnings.

-Spenser

You edited your previous post after I replied. And I have refuted your point: Revenue, for all purposes here, may as well be a random number. It means nothing in terms of how profitable a company is or how efficient it is, it just means that it takes in a lot of money. Its only half of the story, though, you need to also factor in all of the COSTS a company has. If a company takes in $100BILLION, it sounds impressive, but if it actually cost $150BILLION to run the company, it hasn't made any more at all, it has lost money. Now I'm not saying Activision ISN'T profitable, of course it is, but your usage of revenue statistics is pointless.

So to say "Well he's only taken .3% of the revenue" is meaningless, but hell lets just for the hell of it go along with it - if they're making so much money, enough to pay their CEO about what it costs to develop a AAA game, why do they need to raise their prices so much? And why is he so keen to raise them further?

The issue is not what he's getting paid, its the fact that he still wants to raise prices more and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't refuted my point because part of revenue is employee costs, which includes what a CEO makes. His cost to the company is only .3% of their total revenue for last year. That is not much for doing such a damn good job. They're out of debt and they can pull in a half billion in profits during the holiday alone.

The reason they want to increase prices is because it's a business. They're in it to maximize profits. Part of the ways to do that is to raise the prices.

Look I'm not discussing this with you further. You're clearly too ****ed off at Activision to really care what anyone who doesn't hate the company has to say. I'm saying I don't see the problem with anything they're doing as of yet and that's that. They're raising the prices a bit, big deal. If I think the game is worth it (and quite a few Activision games are), I'll pay it. They're paying their CEO a lot of money - he deserves it. He's doing a pretty good job at running the company, especially considering how things are overall these days.

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't refuted my point because part of revenue is employee costs, which includes what a CEO makes. His cost to the company is only .3% of their total revenue for last year. That is not much for doing such a damn good job. They're out of debt and they can pull in a half billion in profits during the holiday alone.

The reason they want to increase prices is because it's a business. They're in it to maximize profits. Part of the ways to do that is to raise the prices.

Look I'm not discussing this with you further. You're clearly too ****ed off at Activision to really care what anyone who doesn't hate the company has to say. I'm saying I don't see the problem with anything they're doing as of yet and that's that. They're raising the prices a bit, big deal. If I think the game is worth it (and quite a few Activision games are), I'll pay it. They're paying their CEO a lot of money - he deserves it. He's doing a pretty good job at running the company, especially considering how things are overall these days.

-Spenser

No it isn't lol

Revenue is the total cash coming INTO the company.

To quote wiki:

In business, revenue or revenues is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers.

And what I'm saying is this:

Profits or net income generally imply total revenue minus total expenses in a given period.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

But you're getting Revenue confused with Expenses:

In common usage, an expense or expenditure is an outflow of money to another person or group to pay for an item or service, or for a category of costs.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expense

Nowhere does it say that revenue has anything to do with how much people get paid, CEOs or otherwise. Without the notion of expenses, Revenue alone doesn't tell you anything about a company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

Maybe I am a little mixed up, but my original statement was this:

Well Activision as a company brought in $5 Bn last year. He must be doing something right. I would say taking .3% of that isn't entirely unfair if you're actually doing a good job.

And you haven't refuted any of it. The math is correct, and you can't refute an opinion, of which mine is that him taking .3% of what Activision took in isn't a big deal, considering he's running a very successful business.

I guess just saying "He must be doing something right" isn't something you can always assume based on revenue, but we know for a fact that Activision is doing extremely well and is extremely profitable, so that assumption stands, as does my opinion on their CEO's earnings.

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he makes a ton of money. Honestly, I'm not surprised it's $15 million. I figured it'd be somewhere in that range, if not higher.

I really don't see what this has to do with the price of any of their games or the franchises, however. I don't think this has any impact on that... if he made less money I'm sure he'd be making the same moves to get as much money as possible. Seems pretty logical to me. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.