Don't the shareholders love him tremendously due to the fact that he managed to make them money for decades?
He is one of the largest shareholders.
Don't the shareholders love him tremendously due to the fact that he managed to make them money for decades?
Even if he did, some of the videos could and would still be shared in their own separate threads. Like Easy Allies has an OT, yet we get a thread for every Top 10 they release. And that's absolutely fine. I think you can make Jim Sterling OT though, if you so want. Don't think there's any rules against it.I don't want to sound like a broken record but....shouldn't this guy's video's get a dedicated OT?
And a CEO who costs a company shittons of money while fucking over employees will subsequently be cut loose with a golden parachute and then find themselves immediately rehired to be CEO somewhere else.That's capitalism for you. A CEO who makes the company shittons of money is probably not going to let go, even if he fucks ever employees.
Fuck greedy shareholders and the system that is set up to reward the behavior.
That is capitalism in a nut shell, it encourages greed. People can call for the CEO's head all they want, he is doing what is best for himself, and what he is doing is legal and ethical according to capitalism.
Did you miss the whole thing about people getting fired to cut costs to appeal to the investor board and maybe people like bobby kotic willing to do that instead of taking cash from his already filled pockets might be the problem. ( also you know... unions are nice ).Bobby Kotick isn't a decent human being because he doesn't make the vidya games you want?
No, you just don't care about human cost if it justifies bizniz and it shows.
We are so far from 'a job is a guarantee' in the status quo that the fact you think this is a good argument is laughable. No, a job is not a guarantee, but you would think that record performance for a company would prevent the need for layoffs. Except workers in this industry have virtually no protections, so even though performance is good people have no job security.
There is a middle ground between 'a job is a guarantee' and 'human beings are disposable'.
Yes he is doing what's best for himself. He's a selfish asshole. Also "ethical according to capitalism", that seems a bit like an oxymoron.
From his prospective, he is being ethical to himself and share holders, because that's really what matters to him.
From his prospective, he is being ethical to himself and share holders, because that's really what matters to him.
I mean, the CEO's job is to make the owners money, not to keep employees or make them happy.That's capitalism for you. A CEO who makes the company shittons of money is probably not going to let go, even if he fucks ever employees.
We are so far from 'a job is a guarantee' in the status quo that the fact you think this is a good argument is laughable. No, a job is not a guarantee, but you would think that record performance for a company would prevent the need for layoffs. Except workers in this industry have virtually no protections, so even though performance is good people have no job security.
There is a middle ground between 'a job is a guarantee' and 'human beings are disposable'.
Sucks you lost your job, but did you know the shareholders are happy?The people who always shout "but shareholders" are missing the fucking point.
People want consequences for the lives these shitbag billionaires ruin for the benefit of spreadsheets.
From Ted Bundy's perspective he was being ethical to himself and his needs, because that's what really matters to him.
You aren't saying anything I don't already know. I'm certainly not blaming other users, so don't put words in my mouth. This entire situation just illustrates why the industry needs to unionize.Oh okay you paladin you.
Shareholders, more often than not, are the polar opposite of being a bastion of morality. They.do.not.give.a.fuck. They are in for the money. Thankfully, we have companies such as Ubisoft who are taking pride at keeping their employees whether in good or bad times. With the Guillemot brothers winning the share war a couple of years ago against Vivendi, the lower shareholders have no choice but to comply with this mentality. But guess what? Those same shareholders would probably welcome a Bobby Kotick as the new CEO. It's how this shitty system works.
Basically, this won't change even though it's wrong. The only way I could think of them to take note is if their customers would boycott their games in such a significant way that it would drastically lower the price of their shares. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure your average Call of Duty player, or even gamer for that matter, has any decent sens of morality.
We can sing Kumbaya all we want around a fire and tap our back. Or we can vent off on an online forum and try to partly blame other users for how things turned to shit while tapping our own back for having the moral ground. Truth of the matter, it's all about the shitty shareholders system. It always has been.
From Ted Bundy's perspective he was being ethical to himself and his needs, because that's what really matters to him.
Running a business within the guidelines of the laws is the same as serial killing?
I mean, the CEO's job is to make the owners money, not to keep employees or make them happy.
If having a larger or happier staff is expected to make the owners more money, then it makes sense to do that. Otherwise, no.
Let's put it this way. If I hired someone to manage my company, and I found out we were over staffed I'd ask why this wasn't being corrected right away. A smart manager will get it done before this is asked.
I actually do not agree that running a successful business is the same as raping and murdering women, no.
I forget when it was, but there was a year where everyone hated Bobby Kotick, would photoshop horns on his head and make him out to be Satan, so on and so forth.
It feels like that year again. Almost makes me nostalgic.
That division does not represent the entirety of the 800 employees laid off though. The staff can transition to other things, that's what companies do when they don't view their employees as disposable.I think it's worth noting that they plan on hiring 30% more developers and that the layoffs are largely aimed at non-development positions. They aren't taking successful teams like Treyarch and cutting them in half to save a few pennies. The people being let go are involved with redundant or low ROI sectors.
The divisions that were laid off were underperforming though. If eSports is losing the company money each year, WoW is only getting half as many customer support calls, and nobody is playing HotS, then is Activision expected to keep those staff around just because? Yeah it sucks, but no company (except maybe Microsoft because they're stubborn) will subsidize fruitless business ventures out of charity.
I actually do not agree that running a successful business is the same as raping and murdering women, no.
Ruining several lives versus thousands? I don't know. Billionaires are the most prolific killers in history.
Your reasoning was shit and comes from a place of psychopathy. Own it.
Ruining several lives versus thousands? I don't know. Billionaires are the most prolific killers in history.
Your reasoning was shit and comes from a place of psychopathy. Own it.
Your equating people losing jobs to a serial killer who raped and killed women... Ok then.
No, that user was pointing out that your argument was not a good one. It was also legal to enslave other human beings a little over a hundred years ago in this country, so just stating that 'its legal' says nothing about the moral implications of these decisions.Running a business within the guidelines of the laws is the same as serial killing?
No. He's a terrible human being because he risks the livelihoods of hundreds so he can fill his already full to burst pockets with more money. Why are you commenting on something you clearly know nothing about?
No, people are saying he isn't a decent human being because the company he leads had record profits and he still decided to layoff hundreds of employees. Personally, I direct my anger more at the system that incentivizes such behavior (and the lack of a union which would protect worker interests and make layoffs like this unfeasible), but I don't think it's that farfetched to see others be angry at Kotick himself. After all, he did make this decision. I'm sure the Activision-Blizzard employees who were laid off don't have a high opinion of the man either.
Did you miss the whole thing about people getting fired to cut costs to appeal to the investor board and maybe people like bobby kotic willing to do that instead of taking cash from his already filled pockets might be the problem. ( also you know... unions are nice ).
Are you being purposefully dense,
Your point was moronic beyond words. So yes, your point is beyond comprehension by a rational mind. Willfully choosing to be a cog in someone else's money making machine is not equivalent to getting murdered.
I don't want to sound like a broken record but....shouldn't this guy's video's get a dedicated OT?
Ruining lives? Didn't Activison provide severance packages? Let's talk in reality.Ruining several lives versus thousands? I don't know. Billionaires are the most prolific killers in history.
Your reasoning was shit and comes from a place of psychopathy. Own it.
Your point was moronic beyond words. So yes, your point is beyond comprehension by a rational mind. Willfully choosing to be a cog in someone else's money making machine is not equivalent to getting murdered.
Don't the shareholders love him tremendously due to the fact that he managed to make them money for decades?
Jim playing backseat business expert now. What people think of him is irrelevant when he makes shareholders piles of cash.
CEOs get fired if major shareholders aren't happy with their performance, and financially Activision have done well under him
Yes I'm aware of the reasoning behind the decision. In my view it was still a poor business decision, and also Kotick is ultimately the one responsible for the upcoming losses that they are projecting.Activision has already announced they will be operating at a loss in Fiscal Year 2020. Those "record" profits are backwards looking, investment is forward looking. Those jobs were cut as a reaction to the loss they will be suffering this year. Their share price has dropped over 40% in the past 4 months, a change was needed. Kotick is doing his job as CEO of a publicly traded corporation. The fact that people can't seem to grasp this most basic fact is baffling. But, apparently he's obligated to keep around a bunch of jobs that lose Activision money and are no longer a part of their business strategy.