• Re: Let's Celebrate Kotick's Ouster

    From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to spallshurgenson@gmail.com on Wed Jan 3 07:39:01 2024
    On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 13:17:36 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

    Many celebrated the Microsoft-Activision merger, believing (correctly,
    as it turns out) that it would lead to Kotick's ouster.

    Which is about as difficult to predict as identifying which US cities
    will have the most homeless tents pop up next year (hint... look for
    ones with high drug tolerance, "defund the police" attitude etc)...

    ...Ousting the existing CEO is usually one of the first things that
    happens in an acquisition situation like this. Even if the actual
    termination date doesn't come immediately, the plans to get him out
    happen before the acquisition deal ever takes place. And no one savvy
    enough to scam their way into the CEO position is naive enough to
    believe that it's going to turn out any other way, so they've often
    protected themselves with various severance clauses. I literally have
    a good friend that does this for a living (gets hired as CEO of a tech
    start up, and spends every hour helping them with funding rounds with
    the ultimate goal of selling the company to someone else, only so he
    can get himself fired with a golden parachute, and rinse and repeat.
    He even describes that process in more diplomatic terms in his online
    profile).

    Now, whether or not that situation is good for customers or employees
    is another matter altogether....

    It really depends on the product, the situation, and in the case of software/gaming/tech etc. the internal culture of the engineering
    division versus the rest of the corporate culture. Sometimes an
    acquisition causes the morale and effectiveness of the internal
    engineering team to completely implode, and in other cases they
    continue to thrive for decades.

    I know a guy who worked for Sybase about 4 decades ago before
    Microsoft acquired the product and branded it SQL Server. He is just
    as happy under MS as he was back then, and his salary has not suffered
    much, he was making over $350k a year last time I talked to him not
    including the stock options he's amassed.. And the fact that the two
    homes he owns that I'm aware of (which I confirmed via property tax
    records) add up to approximately $8M in tax valued real estate, I do
    not doubt his salary claim at all (not uncommon for someone of his
    status that's been at MS that long).

    So it can work out well. It depends on whether the acquisition ends
    up with new management coming in and rocking the boat in engineering
    and changing all the things that made the original company successful.

    I've seen many times a CEO with a background in marketing or
    accounting come in and utterly destroy a company in a matter of months
    simply because they don't understand the first thing about software development. They are clueless idiots that think "lazy developers"
    are behind every situation that doesn't accomodate their ideal vision
    so they start trying to "fix things".....yet because they are that
    fucking stupid, they have no idea how to fix anything about software engineering. It doesn't matter, they parachute out after a few years
    anyway leaving the company in ruin in the wake of their incompetence,
    and most of the folks below them and another little chunk of the
    economy is perma-fucked.

    Microsoft is usually a bit smarter with staffing placement than most
    companies, so if they put a team in charge that has a few decades of
    what REALLY makes an effective engineering team, Activision will
    probably continue to be what it is. Maybe with a little luck it can
    become something better. Not all Microsoft gaming ventures have been
    failures after all... Flight Sim, Age of Empires, etc..

    So, hurrah! Kotick is gone. I just wish it would really matter.

    As if who is in the CEO seat of a tech company ever really does??? The exception to that is very rare circumstances where the CEO is one of
    the key founders of the organization.

    In most cases, what matters is who is REALLY in charge of product development... in some companies that's the CTO, but in larger
    companies sometimes it is several layers below that... even below the
    VP of Engineering level... sometimes its even a middle manager or a
    tech lead who is the real wizard behind the curtain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Wed Jan 3 22:09:44 2024
    On 02/01/2024 18:17, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
    Many celebrated the Microsoft-Activision merger, believing (correctly,
    as it turns out) that it would lead to Kotick's ouster. And while it's
    all well and good that he's no longer CEO, the leadership he installed
    in the company remains, and there's little reason to hope there will
    be a sudden change for the better at Activision. And why should it?
    Kotick proved that making quality products is not necessary to
    becoming a financially successful company; you can just shit out the
    same game year after year and still rake in billions, even as you
    treat your employees (and customers) like crap. Why would Microsoft
    want to change such a winning formula?

    That's pretty much what I find to be the worst aspect of it. There's a
    large enough customer base who in the long run just don't seem to care
    how they are treated or how a company acts. Yeh there may be a little
    bit of outrage here and there but there's a lot more wallet opening.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)