Also Metal Gear solid 5 HAD an online version too. So it wasn’t strictly single player…and don’t get me started on the garbage pile that was Metal Gear Survive
No business isn’t trying to protect their profits. Enough with the “I don’t like this so it’s complete trash” that you guys are obsessed with. You’re not the only opinion in the world.
I never said anything about studying law?
Care to explain Metal Gear Survive then?
They sell when they think a company is going to do badly, and buy when they think a company is going to do well. Share trading is basically a game of “get in before everyone else, and get out before everyone else”, usually predicated on good and bad news.
It’s hard to keep track, suddenly a few people were saying they were lawyers, I got you confused with another warrior.
There are issues on more fronts than the ones we see.
i would argue they have just let in to many chefs in the kitchen and have run their games a muck by trying to literally cater to everybody and everything rather than making anything truly meaningful. Again with product image and public perception.
Uh, no.
Soon™ was a recurring thing for Blizzard going back to Starcraft. The first one.
I agree with that. That is definitely part of it. It’s not fair to really place blame on anyone sole part truth be told. Part of it is pandering to shareholders, part of it is trying to pander to ALL types of gamers (when there are WAY too many preferences among gamers to pander to all of them), part of it is corrupt business practices by releasing half finished products and then demanding more money for the full experience, there’s a whole lot of things that contribute to what gaming as a whole has become.
they weren’t unplayable in the beta… just general over reaction
your pet works, your traps work, your shots work, most of this remembering 2004-2006.
people will adapt or in this case re-adapt
https:/ /imgur.c om/a/QshqVAC
Generally speaking, shareholders don’t matter overly much, it is the board members you have to worry about. Yes, ostensibly the board of directors answer to the shareholders, except that gets into all kinds of “fun” legal shenanigans from there. Not all shares are created equal, and most shareholders either don’t vote(so they don’t matter), or they don’t control enough stock to matter.
Which usually means the largest blocks of shareholders are the ones that make the decisions. Those usually are persons or families, not groups.
Kind of like Amazon is a publicly held Company and technically answers to its shareholders, except for the matter that the Bezos family owns a majority stake in the company. So basically Jeff Bezos can do whatever he wants (within certain legal limits) and nobody who owns stock in Amazon can do anything to stop him.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Kotick plus two or three others have Activision comparably “locked down” for all practical purposes.
1 Like
The only Shareholders that truly matter in this calculation are the clowns running Activision that get paid in large part through stock options.
Their “effective pay” and net worth values are thus linked to the companies performance(and dividend revenues give them secondary income streams). If they want to make their own Net Worth numbers look good, they need the company’s numbers to also look good.
It’s part of the rationale on why you give those high-level clowns stock in the first place. It quite literally leaves them “invested” in the company.
They can. 10
There has to be a separation of liability for shareholders, which is the reason that it is required, by law, for a corporation to have a board of directors. Shareholders, by law, cannot make executive decisions for a company (except for decisions put to a shareholder vote by the board, or if the shareholders are involved in deciding who is on the board of directors). If a shareholder is making executive decisions, then that’s because that shareholder is on the board of directors. ONLY the board of directors can operate the business.
And executives. Depending how you define ‘operate the business’ I suppose.
edit: regardless, I see your post as being in agreement with mine. Are you supporting my position? Or attempting to educate me?
- I’m not agreeing with you, because what you said is wrong.
- Directors are executives.
- Once again, shareholders have absolutely zero executive power in businesses, BY LAW! ONLY the board of directors has that power in a corporation. A shareholder can be on the board of directors, but almost every sharholder in the world isn’t.
They cannot make executive decisions BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE COMPANY!!!
And some people own enough stock they can effectively select one or more board members on their own, without need to go to any other shareholders.
1 Like
That depends on the their constitution. If the company is set up that it has to be a vote, it always has to be a vote, no matter how many shares you own.
I want to add to this: Blizzard’s shareholders don’t care as much either. It’s not their money that they’re investing, they just want their dividends to be as high as possible.
1 Like