Ever Wonder How Much Activision Honcho Made Last Year?


Recommended Posts

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

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

But as I pointed out, the math may have been correct but it was completely irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was .3% or .0000001%, revenue has no basis for anything. In other words, there was nothing to refute.

AS for what he's doing right or wrong, I also stated that what he earns isn't so much the issue, but the fact that the company as a whole is extremely profitable, yet they still want to raise prices is an issue.

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:

Aye the problem today is consumers, borrowing money, spending with no control, buying products they don't need for prices they shouldn't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like Dragons Den, only full of bores.

No wait, it's exactly like Dragons Den.

Why are you reading the topic, then? If you don't like it, there's plenty of others on Neowin for you to browse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like Dragons Den, only full of bores.

No wait, it's exactly like Dragons Den.

Dragons Den Defense Force on call, you lose sir.

Munky knows I :heart: Dragons Den

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you reading the topic, then? If you don't like it, there's plenty of others on Neowin for you to browse.

Because I thought it was going to be an interesting read, not a business lesson. How about you guys stop derailing decent threads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that any part of the revenue paid to the employees is money lost from profit... think about it, if you did something which made you a certain amount of money, but you did it spending less, you'd end up with more money, wouldnt you?

and that 500000 dollar or however many zeroes bonus just means that much money cut out of the company's profits, its spent on the CEO's private home improvements and expensive meals instead of things which actually run the company

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as I pointed out, the math may have been correct but it was completely irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was .3% or .0000001%, revenue has no basis for anything. In other words, there was nothing to refute.

AS for what he's doing right or wrong, I also stated that what he earns isn't so much the issue, but the fact that the company as a whole is extremely profitable, yet they still want to raise prices is an issue.

Its not completely irrelevant. Revenue is their total earnings. What he gets paid is going to come from their total earnings, no matter how you classify it and no matter whether or not they make a profit. What he gets comes out of the total revenue. Revenue is the basis for everything when you talk about a company because that is all of the money that company gets. Employee salary is part of a company's expenses, which get paid for by the revenue they take in. Profits are also a part of the revenue. I don't know how it's not relevant.

As far as your second issue, I addressed that. They're raising prices because they're a business. They're in it to maximize profits. As long as the prices aren't unreasonable to the majority of the market, raising them is going to do just that. And as I said, I've no problem with that either, as some of their games are still worth the price.

If you don't care about how much he makes, why are you in this thread? This thread isn't about the company raising game prices. There's another thread about that already. I mean, we get it already, you dislike the price hike, but not everyone cares and not everyone agrees with your stance. It would be nice if you didn't jump down my throat just because I don't care that they're raising prices. You come in this thread and start trying to lecture me about how what I'm saying about what he makes is irrelevant and then you say you don't care about that issue? Why bring it up at all?

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I thought it was going to be an interesting read, not a business lesson. How about you guys stop derailing decent threads?

I'm so sorry this thread didn't meet your expectations, but what did you expect? You call it derailing, but how is a discussion about revenue and expenses NOT related to how much their CEO gets paid, particularly in bonuses?

Its not completely irrelevant. Revenue is their total earnings. What he gets paid is going to come from their total earnings, no matter how you classify it and no matter whether or not they make a profit. What he gets comes out of the total revenue. Revenue is the basis for everything when you talk about a company because that is all of the money that company gets. Employee salary is part of a company's expenses, which get paid for by the revenue they take in. Profits are also a part of the revenue. I don't know how it's not relevant.

As far as your second issue, I addressed that. They're raising prices because they're a business. They're in it to maximize profits. As long as the prices aren't unreasonable to the majority of the market, raising them is going to do just that. And as I said, I've no problem with that either, as some of their games are still worth the price.

If you don't care about how much he makes, why are you in this thread? This thread isn't about the company raising game prices. There's another thread about that already. I mean, we get it already, you dislike the price hike, but not everyone cares and not everyone agrees with your stance. It would be nice if you didn't jump down my throat just because I don't care that they're raising prices. You come in this thread and start trying to lecture me about how what I'm saying about what he makes is irrelevant and then you say you don't care about that issue? Why bring it up at all?

-Spenser

But look at the OP, he actually gets paid about $900k, that's what you're referring to when you say that employees get paid no matter if the company makes a profit or not. The rest of his $14million comes from BONUSES and those are very much going to be dependant on how well the company is doing. So yeah, it is doing quite well. I think what I'm miscommunicating here is that I don't care if he gets paid $10 or $100million, but it does bother me that he can get such huge bonuses, proof that the company is extremely profitable, but then still turn around and say that prices for games need to go up.

They don't need to go up, if anything they need to come down. His earnings are proof that developers are getting screwed over by publishers, not the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not the whole point of this topic though? Why does he feel the need to increase game prices, when he's already getting that sort of bonus? Yes, it's a company and there out to make as much as they can, but where do you draw the line between a fair price and extortion? He doesn't want to increase the prices out of need, he wants to do it out of greed.

You can't complain about games costing more and more to make when your getting that sort of money, publishers are making allot more now then they were 5 years ago.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody is defending this guy.

Spenser.d, you say the guy must be doing something right because of how much the companys making? There doing so well because of the boom in gaming the past few years, put anybody in his roll and the company would do just as well.

Edited by SIE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not the whole point of this topic though? Why does he feel the need to increase game prices, when he's already getting that sort of bonus? Yes, it's a company and there out to make as much as they can, but where do you draw the line between a fair price and extortion? He doesn't want to increase the prices out of need, he wants to do it out of greed.

You can't complain about games costing more and more to make when your getting that sort of money, publishers are making allot more now then they were 5 years ago.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody is defending this guy.

Uhhh...why did you quote me? I'm the one that's saying exactly this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a company and there out to make as much as they can, but where do you draw the line between a fair price and extortion?

That line is drawn at the point where they aren't maximizing profits anymore (i.e. when the price is high enough that it causes enough people to not buy their games and they see diminishing returns). If enough people buy the game at a higher price that they don't see a drop in profit, it's quite obviously still a fair price.

You can talk about greed all you guys want, but they're in a position where raising the price is a good business move (if only to just test how it affects their revenue). The bottom line is to find ways to maximize profits, and this is one way to try and do that, and honestly, it will probably work.

I'm not saying I like having prices raised, but I'm saying that, right now, I don't think the new asking price is absolutely ridiculous, at least not for quite a few of their franchises.

Also, SIE, there is no particular boom in the gaming market. Many developers are struggling to see better returns quarter after quarter right now. Most are seeing less of a return. Activision has seen better and better returns for over a decade now. It's not something a lot of developers are seeing.

-Spenser

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

That line is drawn at the point where they aren't maximizing profits anymore (i.e. when the price is high enough that it causes enough people to not buy their games and they see diminishing returns). If enough people buy the game at a higher price that they don't see a drop in profit, it's quite obviously still a fair price.

You can talk about greed all you guys want, but they're in a position where raising the price is a good business move (if only to just test how it affects their revenue). The bottom line is to find ways to maximize profits, and this is one way to try and do that, and honestly, it will probably work.

-Spenser

People don't have much of a 'choice', so I wouldn't say "fairness" really enters the equation. If you and all your friends want MW2 day 1 you need to cough up. This is a massively popular franchise, you can't tell some of these addicts to wait 6 months, it's like telling a WoW crack head not to buy the new expansion day 1.

Fair would be offering the game at the normal price and then making more revenue by charging extra for premium packages... but wait, they did that as well, TWO extra premium packages no less and a rumoured MW controller still to come...

When you're selling a version of the game bundled with night vision goggles at ?120, I really wonder why you need to charge ?55 for your standard copy. It's called the vanilla copy for a reason, heck some games special editions end up selling for around ?55 or less.

I for one do not want a future where publishers try to exploit the gaming industry in the way in which record labels exploited the music industry - Luckily that bubble burst eventually and digital distribution came along, I fear how long the same will happen with the gaming industry with how closed the console platforms are.

Infinity Ward are the guys who make the game, form your bonds of loyalty and love with them, not Activision.

Edited by Audioboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't have much of a 'choice', so I wouldn't say "fairness" really enters the equation. If you and all your friends want MW2 day 1 you need to cough up. This is a massively popular franchise, you can't tell some of these addicts to wait 6 months, it's like telling a WoW crack head not to buy the new expansion day 1.

Infinity Ward are the guys who make the game, form your bonds of loyalty and love with them, not Activision.

Lol. You always have a choice. It's called don't buy it if you don't think it's worth the price and it's a pretty easy choice to make. If the addicts are still buying it, that means it's still worth the price to them, and if Activision doesn't see a drop in profit, that's all that matters.

As far as the last statement, a developer needs a publisher. You can't say the series would have ended up this popular or be run this way if IW were owned by someone else. There's a lot done behind the scenes that likely would've been done differently under a different publisher and we don't know how it would've ended up from that. As it is right now, I'm willing to bet IW is pretty happy with how Activision is handling things.

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. You always have a choice. It's called don't buy it if you don't think it's worth the price and it's a pretty easy choice to make. If the addicts are still buying it, that means it's still worth the price to them, and if Activision doesn't see a drop in profit, that's all that matters.

As far as the last statement, a developer needs a publisher. You can't say the series would have ended up this popular or be run this way if IW were owned by someone else. There's a lot done behind the scenes that likely would've been done differently under a different publisher and we don't know how it would've ended up from that. As it is right now, I'm willing to bet IW is pretty happy with how Activision is handling things.

-Spenser

I guess my point was more along the lines of why be so hasty in defending the publisher, the guys who give you the experience you enjoy at the end of the day is Infinity Ward, not so much Activision, but Activision own Infinity Ward, it's not the other way around so you can bet these CEO's are calling the shots.

Infinity Ward aren't the ones saying they want to increase their game prices, that's Activision. I'm sure IW are happy with the deal they have in place, but their priority comes from making a great game, they have to trust and leave Activision to run the business side of things.

And as for not buying it, the difference in cost is marginal in the sense that if 10 of your friends are buying it you're going to make yourself quite unhappy not being able to play alongside them - Your options there? Break your stance on not wanting to pay.... or pirate.

I can easily afford another ?5-10, but luckily for me I have enough to do and don't give two hoots about getting into the game later. For others it's more of a ritual playing online with their friends, that's where Activision have you snookered. Not getting in on day 1 with your friends is such a big deal to so many gamers in the MP realm they'll cave in on that extra ?5-10 regardless of if they want to see publishers exploit them/us.

That's why saying gamers have choice is pretty skewed, and why boycotts like this are ultimately so frail and pointless, so few people actually have the willpower not to join in day 1 with their friends whether it means paying that bit extra or pirating, they'll do it somehow...

I guess I'm more concerned for the gaming industry on a larger scale than this, I do not want to see publishers move in and start exploting the hell out of gamerandb> developers. The gaming industry might be growing at too fast a pace for it's own good. Nowadays you have consoles making you pay for online play, advertising out your ass, purchasable DLC and games everywhere, TV/Music and Video services, social networking on consoles, mainstream gaming coverage/awards like SpikeTV and everything. 5-10 years ago it was a console under your TV that just played games, I'm not saying it's better having less (far from it, I love what consoles can do nowadays), but the more we seemingly get the more the big guys move in to make more money out of us.

Edited by Audioboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I do get what you're saying, and I agree with you about not wanting devs and gamers exploited. I just don't see anything that's going on at the moment as quite leading down that road, at least not for a while. I think publishers are going to keep trying to find ways to make more money, but I think they're generally smart enough to not go so far down that road that the majority of people feel exploited - they know full well that's suicide.

I'm sorry if you feel exploited, but I and a lot of others think what's going on now is great and I really don't see any huge signs that the industry is going to change radically enough anytime soon that most people would feel exploited.

I also have to say that I really think you're mistaken about people and their willpower concerning games. I don't think there are that many people that are getting games day 1 just because they don't have the willpower not to. Even if it's because of a person's friends that they got the game, that means they still made the conscious decision that it was worth it to pay for the game even though the price got jacked up a bit. If the price gets jacked up enough, people will stop thinking it's worth it even if their friends still buy it. Gaming isn't a drug. Not very many people can say they're addicted to gaming in such a way that they wouldn't have the willpower to refuse a game if it costs too much for them.

-Spenser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare and contrast with professional sports or Hollywood actors.

Activision is successful, and isn't asking anyone for bailout money.

Now...with this in mind, explain why anyone should feel particularly revolted with this guy's compensation package...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare and contrast with professional sports or Hollywood actors.

Activision is successful, and isn't asking anyone for bailout money.

Now...with this in mind, explain why anyone should feel particularly revolted with this guy's compensation package...

Forgot to add: Rick Wagoner's retirement package, as former GM CEO, came down to more than USD$8M. His severance package was in the range of $20M. Anyone think his performance is examplary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just look at it this way.. All of these exec's making unfair amounts of money will be fixed when our Messiah Obama regulates all executive's of the private sector's paychecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think he makes too much money. I dont think ceos should ever make that kind of money. Its just not right. He probably doesnt do anywhere near the work as some of the other lower level managers do or any of the work the bluecollar workers do. The ceo doesnt make the company its the lower level staff does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably doesnt do anywhere near the work as some of the other lower level managers do or any of the work the bluecollar workers do. The ceo doesnt make the company its the lower level staff does.

Reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think he makes too much money. I dont think ceos should ever make that kind of money. Its just not right. He probably doesnt do anywhere near the work as some of the other lower level managers do or any of the work the bluecollar workers do. The ceo doesnt make the company its the lower level staff does.

The decisions as to where the company should be headed, and how, are ultimately his. If the guy at the bottom of the ladder screws up, it's not that big a deal. The CEO screws up, you can have hundreds, if not thousands, out of a job.

So if a company performs great, I really have no problem with a CEO raking in the dough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I think Bobby "cockface" Kotick is a giant douche, this is a non story. That's about standard pay for an exec in a company this big. Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is.

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.